Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]

PRIVATE BUSINESS

UNIVERSITY OF LONDON BILL [Lords]

Order for Second Reading read.

To be read a Second time on Tuesday next.

ATHOLL INVESTMENTS (ABERDEEN DEVELOPMENT) ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL

Considered; to be read the Third time tomorrow.

OFFENCES RELATING TO MOTOR VEHICLES

Return ordered,
showing the number of offences relating to motor vehicles in England and Wales, the number of persons prosecuted for such offences, statistics of court proceedings and the number of alleged offences in respect of which written warnings were issued by the police, together with the number of persons concerned, during the year ended 31st December 1976.—[Mr. John.]

Oral Answers to Questions — SOCIAL SERVICES

Cuckfield Hospital

Mr. Tim Renton: asked the Secretary of State for Social Services whether he will have consultations with the relevant regional health authority in order to speed up a decision regarding the building of a new nucleus hospital to replace Cuckfield Hospital.

The Minister of State, Department of Health and Social Security (Mr. Roland Moyle): My Department is discussing preliminary proposals for this project with the South West Thames Regional Health Authority. I am not aware that there is any avoidable delay in reaching decisions.

Mr. Renton: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that Cuckfield Hospital, where many wards are still in Nissen huts that were built before the last war, will soon require a large capital input if there is not to be a new nucleus hospital, but that this will not be money well spent if there is to be such a new hospital? That is the dilemma facing the authority. May we have a firm commitment from the Minister that he will get on with the working papers early next year?

Mr. Moyle: I can give the hon. Gentleman a commitment that we shall proceed with the discussion of the plans not in early 1978, but now. The area health authority is discussing with the regional health authority the question of upgrading of Cuckfield and an improvement of the operating theatres as an interim measure.

Disabled Housewife Allowance

Mr. Watkinson: asked the Secretary of State for Social Services if he remains satisfied with the operation of the disabled housewife allowance.

Mr. Ashley: asked the Secretary of State for Social Services what critical representations he has received concerning the housewives' non-contributory invalidity pension.

The Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Security (Mr. Alfred Morris): Up to 15th November, 46,000 people had claimed non-contributory invalidity pension for married women. The


first payments will be made tomorrow for the week starting 17th November, although I regret that many people will have to wait before they receive their order books. While inevitably there will be criticisms of the scope of the new benefit, I am sure the House will agree that this extension of the cover provided by our income maintenance benefits is a further important advance.

Mr. Watkinson: Is my hon. Friend aware that all sides welcome this breakthrough in assistance to the disabled? What consultations did he have about arrangements for the new benefit, and can he say whether, when the benefit is reviewed, he will consider extending it to housewives who are disabled but who fall outside the terms of the benefit because they are able to do a little housework?

Mr. Morris: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his opening remark. I consulted hon. Members on both sides of the House about the arrangements for introducing the new benefit and I was also in close contact with representatives of the Disablement Income Group. It was a rather novel consultation in that I brought my officials face to face with hon. Members in the All-Party Disablement Group and representatives of DIG. It is difficult to promise any loosening of the criteria because of the expenditure implications, but I shall bear in mind what my hon. Friend has said.

Mr. Ashley: The Government deserve congratulations on this new benefit, but can my hon. Friend say how soon he expects to be able to rectify the injustice of the benefit not being available to families where the husband receives an invalidity pension or is unemployed? Is he aware that, if this injustice is not rectified, those who bear the heaviest burdens will not benefit to the full from the new allowance?

Mr. Morris: There would be further expenditure involved if we changed the nature of the new benefit. That is why I cannot promise any changes of the sort that my hon. Friend is seeking. However, the extension of the non-contributory invalidity pension to married women is an important step forward. I shall be in touch with my hon. Friend again.

Mr. David Price: Is the Minister aware that quite a number of disabled people

and those advising them do not know exactly the conditions that apply to this benefit, in spite of all the efforts of his Department? Through the efforts of his Department, will he consider running short weekend training courses for voluntary bodies and the Citizens' Advice Bureaux so that they can take on board the rather complex detail of this and a number of other benefits for the disabled?

Mr. Morris: This is a new suggestion. Many of the voluntary organisations have been interested in providing information centres for disabled people. I shall gladly give sympathetic consideration to the suggestion made by the hon. Gentleman.

Mr. Ovenden: Further to the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent, South (Mr. Ashley), how does my hon. Friend justify a situation where the wife of a disabled man can earn up to £35 a week before her husband's entitlement to invalidity benefit is affected whereas a couple who are both disabled have to face a situation where the husband's invalidity benefit is reduced because his wife receives the £10 non-contributory benefit?

Mr. Morris: It is difficult for me to comment on any particular case. I shall be delighted to give consideration to any case that my hon. Friend may wish to raise with me in writing. I have said that there will be further expenditure involved in doing more than we have been able to do so far. Introducing new benefits means excluding people as well as including people. We shall build on our present benefits for disabled people as soon as we can.

Mrs. Chalker: Does the hon. Gentleman accept that we now seem to be entering a phase in which we need simplification of all the benefits that are available to the disabled? Many people are muddled about their entitlement and, therefore, are not necessarily getting the full amounts to which they are entitled. Will the hon. Gentleman acknowledge that without the work of the all-party group and pressure from the Conservative Opposition he would not have succeeded in introducing the housewives' NCIP this week? We welcome it, but he would not have succeeded in introducing it without that work and pressure.

Mr. Morris: I am concerned to improve the take-up of our new benefits. There are problems for disabled people in understanding the scope and nature of some of the improvements that we have been able to make. I have said that I shall bear in mind the point made by the hon. Member for Eastleigh (Mr. Price). I mentioned that the All-Party Disablement Group was in touch with me about the arrangements for introducing the allowance. I try always to work in the closest possiblerapport with the group.

Child Fostering (Boarding-out Allowances)

Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: asked the Secretary of State for Social Services if he will make a statement about boarding-out allowances for foster children.

Mr. Moyle: When my hon. Friend asked me to publish in theOfficial Report details of the scales of boarding-out allowances paid by each local authority, I explained in my reply to him on 30th November 1976 that the information was not available centrally. He will be pleased to know, however, that I have now decided to publish the scales and have asked my officials to collect the information. I shall write to my hon. Friend when the information is available.

Mr. Bennett: I thank my hon. Friend for that answer. We seem to be making some progress. I am sure that when he publishes the local authority scales he will agree that it would be much better to replace the wide variation of local scales with one national scale.

Mr. Moyle: My Department has had discussions with the local authority associations, the latest being on 3rd October. Since then, they have agreed to seek the views of their members on whether they can now begin work on the sort of guidance that might be issued when the present resource constraints improve.

Mrs. Knight: Will the Minister tell the House what discussions he has had with local authorities to encourage them to campaign to get their children who are in care out of local authority homes and into ordinary, normal homes? Is he aware that in Sweden, for example, 80 per cent. of such children are fostered whereas only 40 per cent. to 50 per cent. are fostered here? Will he explain that?

Mr. Moyle: That is a somewhat different question. My Department is continually encouraging local authorities to expand their fostering services.

Hospital Waiting Lists

Mr. Cormack: asked the Secretary of State for Social Services how many people were awaiting admission into National Health Service hospitals at the latest date for which figures are available.

The Secretary of State for Social Services (Mr. David Ennals): At 31st March, about 596,000.

Mr. Cormack: Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that that is a shameful figure that reflects badly upon the National Health Service? Will he explain how he can possibly reconcile it with a recent statement to nurses and others to the effect that the Health Service is in a better state than ever before?

Mr. Ennals: The hon. Gentleman did not ask me what the figures were before. In fact, the number on the waiting lists is decreasing. The March figures show a reduction of almost 11,500 compared with December 1976. Successive Governments have had to contend with high waiting lists. Even if we go back to 1951, when we had a smaller and younger population, the number on the waiting lists was getting on for 500,000. This has been a steady problem.

Mr. Grocott: Why is it not possible at least to achieve some sort of equality in the waiting lists between hospitals in the same region? Is it not the case that many patients would be prepared to travel quite a long distance to a hospital to receive attention if that were necessary and if they could be treated more quickly than at the hospital nearer to their home?

Mr. Ennals: That is right. We have carried out a recent study of the waiting lists, and a number of proposals for the management of waiting lists have been put forward, including precisely the one put forward by my hon. Friend. It is true that some consultants have much longer waiting lists than others. It is true that some hospitals have much longer waiting lists than others. Some regions and areas have longer waiting lists than others. This is one of the


suggestions that have been made. I and the health authorities have determined that we shall reduce the level of waiting lists. We have set ourselves a target—namely, to ensure that no urgent cases wait more than a month and no non-urgent cases wait more than a year.

Mr. Peter Mills: Does the right hon. Gentleman realise the appalling situation—I am not exaggerating—at the Plymouth Eye Infirmary, which probably has the longest waiting list of any hospital in the country? Is it not a shame that people's eyesight should be slowly deteriorating because of a lack of funds and a consequent lack of ability to treat these people in the infirmary?

Mr. Ennals: I cannot give an explanation in that particular case. However, the number of consultants in the Health Service is steadily increasing. It increased by 3·4 per cent. last year. The amount of money available to assist the Health Service has also increased. The health authorities are spending £9½ million this year. That sum is designed positively to reduce waiting lists. I can assure the hon. Gentleman that we are being as active as we can in dealing with the problem.

Dr. M. S. Miller: There is no room for complacency in these matters, but does my right hon. Friend agree that, although there is sympathy everywhere for those suffering from non-urgent conditions, we should get this matter into perspective? Will he tell us just how much waiting time there is for any kind of acute surgical or medical condition in the National Health Service?

Mr. Ennals: In the majority of cases there is little wait if the matter is urgent. That should be recognised. Most of those who are having to wait are non-urgent cases. When a case becomes urgent, it goes to the top of the list.

Dr. Vaughan: But is it not a fact that acute cases are waiting for investigation? Is it not a fact that under the right hon. Gentleman's Government the waiting list has increased by nearly 100,000 since 1974? Is he aware that we now have the longest waiting list of any country in Western Europe?

Mr. Ennals: I assure the hon. Gentleman that the number of people on the

waiting list is now decreasing. It would be nice if Opposition Members were to recognise that we are now beginning to see a decrease in the scale of the problem. That is because there has been a substantial increase recently in hospital activity. The number of in-patients treated increased by over 5½ per cent. in the 12 months to December 1976, and the number of out-patients treated increased by 8 per cent. We now have a period of increasing activity in the Health Service, which explains why the numbers on the waiting lists are coming down. I can assure the hon. Gentleman that the first time the waiting list went over 500,000 was when his party was in office.

Mr. Cormack: In view of the unsatisfactory nature of the reply, I beg to give notice that I shall seek to raise the matter on the Adjournment.

Disabled Persons (Campaign for Access)

Mr. Walter Johnson: asked the Secretary of State for Social Services what success has been achieved with the Campaign for Access for the Disabled; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Alfred Morris: The Silver Jubilee Committee on Improving Access for Disabled People has been pursuing a wide range of initiatives. These include letters asking for their help in the campaign to all hon. and right hon. Members, to the first citizens of local authorities throughout the United Kingdom and to a large number of organisations of and for disabled people. The committee has been heartened by the general response to its initiatives. A special "Access Week" is to be held in June next year, by which time the committee will be better able to judge the full impact of its efforts.

Mr. Johnson: I congratulate my hon. Friend, but does he agree that much remains to be done to assist the disabled by, for instance, the design of post office and bank counters and telephone boxes, and access to places of entertainment and public buildings? Will he therefore regard this matter with some urgency and get all the assistance that he can from his right hon. Friends?

Mr. Morris: I entirely agree that much more needs to be done, and I know that my hon. Friend will accept that a great


deal has been done in recent years to improve access. Some 60 hon. Members have responded favourably to the request for help from the Chairman of the Silver Jubilee Committee. Some hon. Members have taken positive action to publicise the campaign. I hope that more hon. Members will help, because they could do nothing better to improve the status of disabled people than helping this campaign.

Mr. Hannam: Does the Minister accept that, notwithstanding all the work of the committee and all the exhortations, architects and local authorities are not producing the improvements in access for disabled people that we should like, bearing in mind, for instance, that our own interview rooms off Westminster Hall still do not provide access for the disabled? Does the hon. Gentleman accept that the only real solution is to alter the planning laws so that access for the disabled is made a statutory requirement?

Mr. Morris: I am familiar with the claims for further legislative change. The non. Member for Exeter (Mr. Hannam), as secretary of the All-Party Disablement Group in the House, will accept, however, that there have been improvements both here in the Palace of Westminster and throughout the country. I am not complacent. I am anxious to make further progress and I shall use my best endeavours to secure further improvement, with all that has been said very much in mind.

Mr. Hardy: I welcome my hon. Friend's comments and the advances made in respect of public buildings, but does he not agree that the most outstanding current need concerns access to public transport?

Mr. Morris: There are many conflicting demands in this area. Some would say that the greatest single need is for improvements in personal transport. I have been in touch with British Rail and with organisations in many different parts of the economy to try to persuade them to do everything they can to help disabled people to integrate into society. As I have said before, I shall continue trying to improve the status of disabled people by improving their access to public and social buildings alike.

Mobility Allowance

Mr. Alexander Fletcher: asked the Secretary of State for Social Services if he will make arrangements to pay the mobility allowance by post.

Mr. Alfred Morris: The mobility allowance is paid by order book which is posted to the beneficiary's address. Orders are encashable at four-weekly intervals at a post office of the beneficiary's choice. While the benefit is still being phased in, it is not economic to have an alternative method of payment: but once phasing in is further advanced, an alternative method of payment will be considered.

Mr. Fletcher: Is the Minister aware that that is a most unsatisfactory answer? He will know that unemployment benefit, supplementary benefit and retirement pensions can be paid by post. Why should this group of all groups be discriminated against when it may well cost individuals half or more of the weekly mobility allowance simply to get to the post office for the payment? Surely the Minister can act to do something about getting this money paid by post.

Mr. Morris: My Department is always prepared to consider the individual circumstances of disabled persons. I am not sure whether the hon. Gentleman is aware that other persons may collect the allowance on a disabled person's behalf. When we are introducing new benefits, administrative problems are inevitable. I am not prepared to accept the alternative of doing nothing just because there are problems.

Mr. George Rodgers: How many disabled people are currently receiving mobility allowance, and how many will ultimately benefit when the scheme is fully phased in? Is my hon. Friend aware of the strong rumours that the mobility allowance is to be further substantially increased, and may we have a statement from him on that in the very near future?

Mr. Morris: Some 60,000 people are now receiving the new mobility allowance. There was a 40 per cent. increase in the amount of the allowance last week. My hon. Friend referred to rumours of a further increase. I can tell him that there will be a further statement at the earliest possible date.

Mr. Patrick Jenkin: I wish to revert to the original Question. If the rumours in the Press that there is to be a new scheme to provide vehicles for the disabled, based on the assignment of the mobility allowance, have any foundation, would it not be necessary to make arrangements for the money to be paid by post? One cannot envisage those concerned having to go round to the offices to collect the mobility allowance. When may we expect a statement on this new private sector scheme to help the disabled to get vehicles?

Mr. Morris: The scheme would be a partnership between public and private sectors. That is a most important point. Secondly, the right hon. Gentleman will appreciate that I cannot anticipate the terms of any statement. I hope that he will await the statement which we shall make at the earliest possible date.

Supplementary Benefits Commission

Mr. Madel: asked the Secretary of State for Social Services when he expects a report on the review of the work of the Supplementary Benefits Commission.

The Minister for Social Security (Mr. Stanley Orme): The review is making good progress and I expect to receive a report early next year. I have undertaken to publish any proposals for changes in the supplementary benefit scheme that emerge from the review so that they can be widely studied before decisions are taken.

Mr. Madel: Given the Government's desire to reduce the number of pensioners dependent on supplementary benefits, and given that the full effects of the second-pension scheme will not be felt for at least 20 years, does the right hon. Gentleman agree with the Supplementary Benefits Commission that something additional must be done in the next 20 years?

Mr. Orme: I welcome what the hon. Gentleman said. We hope that the report will come up with simplified proposals. I cannot phase the old scheme out until the new pension scheme is fully phased in, but we hope that the review will come up with proposals that the Government can study.

Mrs. Hayman: Will my right hon. Friend make sure that the review covers the question of the costs and possible benefits, in terms of perinatal morbidity

and mortality, of paying a special diet allowance, through supplementary benefit, to claimants who are pregnant?

Mr. Orme: All supplementary benefit claimants who are able to receive the benefits will be taken into account.

Mr. Sproat: Is it not typical of the waste in the system that this week the right hon. Gentleman's Department gave £5 to a man for an alarm clock—a man to whom it had given about £3,000 over the last two years—on the ground that the man, who was unemployed, had said that he could not get work because he could not wake up in the morning?

Mr. Orme: The House can judge the hon. Gentleman's attitude to the people who need benefit. We are concerned in this review to see that the millions of people, including the 3 million pensioners, who need supplementary benefit are able to get it. We want to simplify these matters, and the hon. Gentleman does not assist in that.

Mr. Loyden: In the review, will my right hon. Friend carefully consider the composition and functions of the appeal tribunals, and will he give high regard to the fact that there are thousands of people who are entitled to benefits but do not claim them? What is he doing to deal with that?

Mr. Orme: On the last point, we hope that the review, by coming forward with proposals to simplify the system, will make it easier for those who are entitled to benefits to claim. We will consider my hon. Friend's first point.

Mr. Patrick Jenkin: Is the Minister aware that many hon. Members in all parts of the House hope that the review will take the fullest account of the oft-repeated statements of Professor Donnison, Chairman of the Supplementary Benefits Commission, that the development of the child benefit and tax credit systems is the best and most positive way of relieving the Supplementary Benefits Commission of many of its problems? Is he aware that over the last year tax allowances for single people have gone up by 24 per cent. and those for married people by 27 per cent. but that the combined child allowances have gone up by only 1·7 per cent.? Does he agree that increases in child benefit should now have the highest priority of all?

Mr. Orme: The right hon. Gentleman should recognise that the child benefit scheme equates with the tax credit system. I cannot see what the right hon. Gentleman is complaining about. The review is concerned not with future policy but with simplifying the supplementary benefit scheme. I assure the right hon. Gentleman that, alhough this is the responsibility of my Department, Professor Donnison and the Commission are being fully consulted.

Frail Elderly Persons (Family Care)

Mr. van Straubenzee: asked the Secretary of State for Social Services whether he will make a statement on the financial support available to relatives caring for the frail elderly.

Mr. Alfred Morris: Invalid care allowance was introduced in July 1976. This new benefit, which is now payable at the personal rate of £10·50 a week, provides a non-means-tested source of income for men and single women of working age who are staying at home to care for a severely disabled relative who is receiving attendance allowance. In addition, Class I—employed earners—contributions are credited to beneficiaries of the invalid care allowance. My Department's leaflet "Help for Handicapped People" outlines a wide range of other benefits and services which may also be available.

Mr. van Straubenzee: Does the Minister accept that more families would care for the frail elderly in the home—which I am sure is his objective, as it is mine—if there were more provision for the care of the frail elderly on a short-term basis? I am thinking of the occasional holiday break for those who care for the frail elderly. Will the Minister consider whether it is possible to make temporary provision by the greater use of Part III accommodation?

Mr. Morris: There are many examples of short-term stay facilities being made available. If the hon. Member has any particular need in mind, I shall be glad to hear from him. He made an extremely important point. It is my job and that of my colleagues to try to lift the pressure and strain off families who are looking after disabled people.

Mr. Carter-Jones: Does not my hon. Friend agree that the invalid care allow

ance should be increased substantially, because when relatives look after the elderly they take a substantial burden off society's costs? Will he consider expanding the geriatric rehabilitation services? Will he take up the matter raised by the hon. Member for Wokingham (Mr. van Straubenzee), because we should be giving people more holidays to allow them relief from caring for elderly relatives?

Mr. Morris: According to the latest figures, there has been a substantial increase in the number of holidays provided by local authorities. There is a case for increasing the invalid care allowance, but we are in a situation of infinite claims and finite resources. I am doing everything I can to build upon the considerable improvements that we have already made.

Mr. Hodgson: How can the Minister justify the logic in a married woman being denied the invalid care allowance when she can receive the non-contributory invalidity pension?

Mr. Morris: That is because the two benefits have different purposes. People do not always realise that benefits can be paid in combination. For example, in Scotland recently someone said that she would not be entitled to the new allowance for housewives because she was in receipt of attendance allowance. But the attendance allowance, the new housewife's benefit and the mobility allowance can be paid together, although they have different purposes.

Mrs. Knight: Does the Minister agree that the financial support which provides the lifeline of day and short-term care for the frail elderly is of immense importance to elderly wives or husbands who are caring for the frail elderly? Will he see that support is made available for the ambulance service which has been stopped and which has therefore ended this important service?

Mr. Morris: In our document "The Way Forward", we have emphasised the priority that we attach to the further development of domiciliary services for the elderly and others in special need. At the same time, we have announced a research project into the needs of families who are caring for the elderly. I shall


bear in mind everything that has been said today.

Mentally Handicapped Persons

Mr. Carter-Jones: asked the Secretary of State for Social Services what is his estimate of the number of mentally handicapped adults in England currently living at home with their parents who will need alternative accommodation and care within five and 10 years, respectively; what action he is taking to meet this need; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Ennals: The figures requested by my hon. Friend are not available nationally. However, the number of residential places provided by health and local authorities is already sufficient in aggregate to meet the expected total needs over the next 10 years. What is required is not an increase in the numbers of residential places but a change in their distribution between health and local authority services and towards smaller establishments nearer to the communities which they serve, along with improved domiciliary and day services.

Mr. Carter-Jones: Will my right hon. Friend please realise that hon. Members on both sides of the House are made aware when they attend their weekly surgeries that the parents of mentally handicapped children are worried, first, about getting old and, second, about dying? They are worried that their children will not be looked after. Will my right hon. Friend make a massive effort within the community so that such parents are reassured?

Mr. Ennals: I am aware of the anxieties of these parents. This is one reason why in "The Way Forward" I have asked authorities to pay particular attention to the needs of the 16 to 25year-old age group, because that is the group that is causing great concern.

Mrs. Chalker: Will the Secretary of State consult the voluntary organisations which help the mentally handicapped to see whether a programme can be developed whereby parents can be assisted on a wide local basis?

Mr. Ennals: A great deal of work is carried out by the voluntary organisations. Excellent co-operation exists between my Department and those organisations. I doubt whether there has

ever been such a close partnership as there is today. The financial assistance that we have given to the voluntary organisations is an indication of that close co-operation. The additional money made available to health and local authorities for joint planning also provides opportunities for voluntary organisations to participate.

Mr. Christopher Price: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the public expenditure cuts over the last two years have cut deeply into the capital programmes for both the mentally handicapped and the mentally ill, particularly in London? Is he further aware that the Lambeth, Southwark and Lewisham Area Health Authority has recently decided not to build a unit for the mentally ill in the constituency of his hon. Friend the Minister of State? Will he make more money available for these essential facilities?

Mr. Ennals: There is no doubt that the shortage of finance has been a considerable restraint upon authorities. They will have welcomed the announcement I made in the House 10 days ago that there will be an additional £37 million for capital expenditure for health and local authorities in 1978–79. Some of that money will be used for accommodation for the mentally handicapped. There will also be some additional revenue and capital funds for local authorities.

Geriatric Patients (Hospital Waiting Lists)

Mr. Frank Allaun: asked the Secretary of State for Social Services what is the approximate total national waiting list and average waiting time for places for the elderly in hospital beds and hostels; what steps he will take to improve the shortage; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Ennals: On 31st March 1977, over 5,000 patients were on the waiting list for hospital geriatric beds. Average waiting time is not known but of the 1,415 requiring urgent admission 625 had waited more than one month; 379 of the non-urgent cases had waited more than one year. No information is available centrally about waiting lists for old people's homes.
Health and local authorities are well aware of the need to improve services


for the elderly as a main priority within resources available. "The Way Forward" contains suggestions for dealing with the practical problems involved in expanding hospital provision. Further guidance will be issued next spring taking account of the latest public expenditure proposals.

Mr. Allaun: Is my right hon. Friend aware that this month an 88-year-old Salford lady was dumped in a hospital casualty ward where senior doctors spent days trying to find her a bed in a hospital or geriatric ward? Is he further aware that many GPs spend hours daily pleading for places for such elderly people and that the answer to this problem is the provision of more money and the reversing of the public expenditure cuts?

Mr. Ennals: I agree with my hon. Friend. The fact that people are living so much longer creates these problems for local authorities, hospital authorities and GPs. This is one reason why the needs of the elderly are top priority within the resources available to the National Health Service and one reason also why we were able to make at least some additional resources available in the announcement I made to the House the week before last.

Mr. Boscawen: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that even in emergency cases elderly people are being refused entry to hospitals? Does he realise that there are serious cases in my part of the world involving elderly people who have not been admitted even though they have been in considerable pain?

Mr. Ennals: The fact that there are as few as 5,000 on the hospital waiting list shows that, while there are individual cases which cause hon. Members considerable concern, on the whole the hospital authorities are giving high priority to meeting needs, particularly of the frail elderly.

Mr. Pavitt: What consideration has my right hon. Friend given to the report on common waiting lists produced by the Health Services Board, in particular the submission by one member of the board, Mr. Bernard Dix? Does he intend to await a Royal Commission before making better liaison between provision for the elderly in Part III homes and warden-assisted geriatric wards?

Mr. Ennals: The proposals that have come from the Health Services Board about common waiting lists are now open for consultation. They have gone out to organisations and the period of consultation is nearly completed. When it is over, I shall come to the House and indicate the policies that we shall pursue. Dealing with the second part of my hon. Friend's supplementary question, naturally, in the planning of resources available to health authorities we encourage maximum co-operation between social service and housing authorities.

Psychiatric Hospitals (Northumberland)

Mr. Beith: asked the Secretary of State for Social Services what representations he has received about the lack of funds for psychiatric hospitals in Northumberland; and what replies he has made

Mr. Moyle: Five letters have been received from hon. Members on this subject, as well as one from Northumberland Community Health Council. In my replies to these letters, sent on 21st November, I have explained the present position regarding funding of these hospitals and informed them that a meeting between senior officers of the regional and area health authorities has been arranged to discuss the matter.

Mr. Beith: Is it not the case that under the region's revenue plan for the next two years betterment funds are being steered away from the Northumberland area, so that if essential improvements are to be made in these psychiatric hospitals it can be only at the expense of the other medical services in Northumberland, despite the fact that the hospitals serve the whole region?

Mr. Moyle: The hon. Gentleman has got the wrong idea, because half of the betterment funds for this year going to the Northumberland Area Health Authority have been directed towards psychiatric hospitals. In any case, the region is a receiving region under the Resource Allocation Working Party formula and is therefore likely to enjoy a growth rate of at least 2 per cent. on current forward projections for the next decade. Therefore, the second point raised by the hon. Gentleman is not true either.

Whooping Cough Vaccination

Mr. Bryan Davies: asked the Secretary of State for Social Services how many children have been given whooping cough vaccine in the current year; and how this figure compares with the previous three years.

Mr. Ennals: The number of children under the age of 16 who completed courses of vaccination against whooping cough in England during 1976, the latest year for which information is available, was nearly 240,000. The corresponding figures for the three previous years were: in 1973 about 550,000, in 1974 about 440,000 and in 1975 about 245,000. I shall circulate the precise figures in theOfficial Report.

Mr. Davies: I am grateful for that answer. Does my right hon. Friend share with me the concern that public confidence in the immunisation programme against whooping cough is at an all-time low? Does he further agree that he ought to put the highest priority on restoring that public confidence lest we face an epidemic of whooping cough this winter and in future winters?

Mr. Ennals: I gave to the House yesterday the advice of the Joint Committee on Vaccination and Immunisation, which is that whooping-cough vaccination should continue to be offered as part of the programme of routine immunisation of babies and infants. I consider that this advice is extremely important in view of the likelihood of a serious outbreak of the disease this winter. As my hon. Friend will know, the number of cases of whooping cough is rising significantly week by week.

Dr. Vaughan: Is it not a fact that there are now serious differences of opinion in the advice that the Secretary of State has been given by his two expert committees? Where does this lead to for parents? Is it not an urgent necessity for him to give clear advice and guidance to parents? Would it not be better to suspend the issue of this vaccine until he is quite sure about its safety?

Mr. Ennals: No. I have sought the advice of the Joint Committee on Vaccination and Immunisation. which has made it clear that it does not believe that

the vaccine should be withdrawn. It is perfectly clear that the risk which arises as a result of children not being vaccinated is very much greater than the undefined risk of their suffering some damage as the result of vaccination. I would be acting against the advice of my expert advisers were I to take the action proposed by the hon. Gentleman.

Mr. Ashley: Is my right hon. Friend aware that his decision not to give further publicity to the need for vaccination is both correct and courageous in view of the advice of the Committee on Safety of Medicines to the effect that further assessment of the whooping cough vaccine is required but that it is a grave error of judgment to delay the campaign to vaccinate against other diseases such as diphtheria? Ought he not to initiate a campaign immediately?

Mr. Ennals: I have made it clear to the House and to the country that it is extremely important that parents should have their children vaccinated against poliomyelitis, diphtheria and tetanus. When I have the advice of the two committees, it is likely that I shall proceed with some sort of campaign early next year. I must, as my hon. Friend recognises, be bound by the advice that the experts give me.

Following are the figures:


1973
556,535


1974
439,385


1975
247,339


1976
239,295

Oral Answers to Questions — EUROPEAN COMMUNITY

Mr Jay: asked the Prime Minister whether he will publish in theOfficial Report his letter of 30th September to the Secretary of the Labour Party on the Government's attitude to the EEC; and whether he will make a statement.

The Prime Minister (Mr. James Callaghan): Yes.

Mr. Jay: In view of this interesting letter, may I ask whether the Government will be bringing forward at an early date specific proposals for greater control by this Parliament over EEC legislation and for drastic changes in the common agricultural policy and the common fisheries policy?

The Prime Minister: The letter is designed to promote public discussion, which it has done, and to indicate the Government's long-term views and objectives on the matter. I do not think that the issues my right hon. Friend raises are likely to be resolved within a short period of time, but this shows what the Government are working towards. As for legislation within the control of this Parliament, it would need new legislation to give the European Assembly any further powers and the Government have no intention of introducing any of that.

Mr. David Steel: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that some of my right hon. and hon. Friends and I attended a meeting in Brussels last weekend of European Liberal and Democratic Parties which was attended by two of the Foreign Ministers of the Nine? Is he further aware that great concern was expressed to the effect that this House ought to support the European Assembly Elections Bill in the form presented to the House, both so that we have the elections in time and so that the British delegation may contribute proportionately to the political groupings in the Assembly as do other member States?

The Prime Minister: I am aware that both M. Thorn and Herr Genscher hold this view strongly. I fear that in other countries there are other views on the matter. I would not wish to intrude on the Liberal Assembly in that way.

Mr. Roper: Would my right hon. Friend agree that he is in no way isolating himself within the Community in relation to the views he has put forward in his letter because the Danish Prime Minister has made it clear that he holds almost identical views?

The Prime Minister: What the letter represents, together with my speech at the Lord Mayor's Banquet, is a coherent policy which this country should follow. The policy that is set out in respect of the Community will, in my view, provide advantages for this country without the disadvantages which some have foreseen.

Following is the letter:

30 September 1977.

Dear Ron

I am writing to you about the statement and background paper on the European Community which the National Executive Com

mittee has prepared. The Government has never seen the Community as a static organisation and, as you know, we have been examining the workings of the Community in order to form a long-term perspective on the areas where reform and change are required in the Community. Such a perspective would provide the framework for future policy.

I begin by saying that the real long-term effects of Community membership cannot be properly measured because this period has coincided with a five-fold increase in oil prices and the worst world recession in 40 years. I do not think that enough weight is given to this coincidence, when we measure the dissatisfaction felt in Britain about the effect of membership. But equally I am in no doubt that there are aspects of present Community policies which do not work in our interests or may work counter to our concepts of how Britain and Europe should develop.

Let me say straightaway that the solution to these problems would not lie in Britain's withdrawal from the European Community and I welcome the fact that the NEC statement does not propose this. Such a policy would be too facile because it would ignore both the contribution which the Community has made to healing old divisions and also the immense political and economic effect of such a drastic step on the future of Britain. Withdrawal would cause a profound upheaval in our relations with Europe but also more widely—and particularly in our relations with the United States.

There could be serious consequences on the policies of important Allies such as, for example, the Federal Republic of Germany, which has long made membership of the Community, with Britain as a full member, one of the cornerstones of German foreign policies. There would be a risk of increasing tensions in East/West relations. It might well have adverse impact on the development of the new democracies in Portugal, Spain and Greece, all of whose Governments are seeking to strengthen their democratic commitment through membership of the Community. We are pledged to do all in our power to help sustain the new found freedoms of these countries and I do not doubt that disarray in the Community would weaken seriously the forces of democracy there.

Political co-operation between the Nine, closely linked with their Community activity, has recently made considerable progress. The Nine are working together to influence South Africa to abandon apartheid, including a new code of conduct covering such issues as trade union representation, wage levels and conditions of work for the employees of European companies operating in South Africa. The policy of the Nine towards Southern Africa is also being co-ordinated in the UN, particularly over Namibia and Rhodesia. The Community is moving towards a common line over human rights, and in other important areas such as, for example, over Cyprus, the Middle East, Yugoslavia and the Belgrade Conference, the Nine are increasingly speaking with one voice. In this way the Community is exerting a stronger political influence than it would do if its members were speaking individually.

So the best way forward for us is to define the essential elements of a distinctive policy that will meet the legitimate concerns and interests of the British people and will strengthen unity and democracy in Europe. In the words of the National Executive Committee document: "We must avoid a purely negative posture".

Despite the written constitution of the European Community, it is an organic and evolving body, and it is our responsibility to work for reform of the Community's policies and the manner in which its institutions operate where this is necessary. The renegotiation of 1974–75 showed that it was possible both to be critical of the present structure and yet work within the Community to improve it. Indeed, in certain key areas renegotiation was not simply a matter of improving the terms for Britain, it also helped to create a better Community—the Lomé Convention dealing with Third World States being an example of such a development.

The task now before the Government and the Party is to produce a long term perspective for reform and change within the Community. It should be possible for us to agree on the areas in which improvements and reforms are needed and to work out in some detail the specific objectives we should set.

For such a policy to succeed we shall also need to convince eight other Governments, all with their own perceptions of the future of Europe and with their own national interests to defend.

I suggest that we must avoid the political nationalism which would disregard the ideas and experience of other European Democratic Socialist Parties or would treat their experience as some inferior brand—not to be confused with the genuine British article. Nor should we be party to attempts to make the EEC a scapegoat for all our national ills. It is certain that we would not carry conviction for a programme of reform among other members of the Community if we begin by blaming the EEC for all or most of our inflation, our level of unemployment, our low productivity and investment or the structural weakness in the British economy. Some of these problems pre-date our membership and will need a continued national effort to overcome them. We must put our own house in order, and in doing so, we should ensure that we are not hindered by our membership.

But we can also work to shape the policies of the EEC so that in serving the interests of all its members they will also be complementary to the policies of a regenerated British industry and revitalised British economy. Our main purpose should be to define our aims and objectives so that the British people can see clearly that Labour's policy is best designed to promote their interests inside the Community and to strengthen the unity of the people of Europe within a democratic framework. Some elements of such a policy already exist and the Government has under consideration six key elements on which we are concentrating attention. These are:

(a) maintenance of the authority of national governments and Parliaments;

(b) democratic control of Community business;
(c) common policies must recognise the need for national governments to attain their economic, industrial and regional objectives;
(d) reform of the Common Agricultural Policy;
(e) the development of a Community energy policy compatible with national interests;
(f) enlargement of the Community.

Maintenance of the Authority of National Governments and Parliament

The Government has never accepted that the Community should develop into a federation. It is our policy to continue to uphold the rights of national Governments and Parliaments. We do not envisage any significant increase in the powers of the European Parliament. Should any such increase in powers be contemplated it would need the unanimous consent of the Nine Member States and of the Parliaments. The United Kingdom should make it clear that in our case any change in the powers of the Assembly would require an Act of Parliament and not simply be introduced by an Affirmative Order under the European Communities Act.

Democratic Control of Community Business

We should try to define categories of Community legislation and develop greater Parliamentary control over those categories which we would otherwise have considered appropriate for Parliamentary legislation. We must also improve the flow of information about the Community to Parliament and to the public as part of the process of improving the scrutiny procedures which the Government have established. There is need for greater openness in Community procedures including the holding of some Council debates in public.

Attainment of Economic, Regional and Industrial Objectives

There is concern about how much freedom any individual government has within the Community Rules to plan its own industrial and regional strategy and intervene in industry to fulfil its industrial objectives. On the other hand, with the help of the Commission the experience of a number of governments, including our own in the matter of British Leyland, Chrysler, Meriden and Alfred Herbert, suggests that fears are exaggerated and we have of course benefited from things like the Social Fund. Nevertheless, there is need for constant vigilance on these matters and a need for discussion with other Socialist and like-minded parties as well as governments, on both industrial planning policy and the related problems of regional development and unemployment.

Reform of the Common Agricultural Policy

We should work to develop a four year structural plan to secure a substantial reduction in surpluses and to maintain restraint on prices so that they are held to the minimum necessary for efficient production to the benefit of our consumers. World prices must be taken more fully into consideration and greater scope given to competitive imports from abroad,


especially from developing countries and from the more efficient temperate producers. United Kingdom agricultural production should be selectively expanded. Action on prices must be knitted into a co-ordinated programme of measures to tackle the problem of surplus production including, where appropriate, measures designed to improve general levels of efficiency and to ease the removal of backward producers from the land. Some responsibility for subsidising the incomes of inefficient producers should shift from the Community or the consumer to national governments. Special measures will be needed on the part of national governments or the Community to safeguard certain forms of agriculture for particular social or regional purposes.

The Development of a Community Energy Policy

Energy policy will be of fundamental importance to the UK and to the Community as a whole. There are a number of ways in which a common energy policy could be to our joint advantage and could also help Britain to put our resources to the best use, for instance in planning the future of our coal industry and in seeking collaboration on major research projects. We shall need to uphold British energy interests vigorously in the Community while taking full account of Europe's shortage of indigenous fuels.

Enlargement of the Community

The Government and the Party have always supported the concept of enlargement. We have a strong political commitment to the support of democracy in Greece, Portugal and Spain, and the Community should use its democratic political strength to buttress these new democracies. The dangers which some have seen of an over-centralised, over-bureaucratised and over-harmonised Community will be far less with twelve Member States than with nine.

These long-term objectives are by no means exhaustive either In total or content. For example, we are already making strenuous efforts to secure an acceptable Common Fisheries Policy. But the objectives I have set out above will indicate the general stance that the Labour Government would adopt within the Community. My aim is to conduct a policy of reform consistent with wholehearted membership which would enjoy a great deal of support from our people: namely a proper promotion of British interests combined with a positive direction in which the Community could move effectively. The knowledge that these are our objectives would be known to the other members of the Community and would guide the direction which our efforts within the Community will take and against which proposals for future policy would be considered. Provided we are ready to fulfil the obligations of membership we have undertaken, for example in the matter of Direct Elections, our general stance could bring no accusations of lack of co-operation.

The National Executive Committee has made an important contribution by producing its own analysis. Conference will I hope have the opportunity to express its views. Follow

ing Conference I propose to invite the National Executive Committee to a discussion with members of the Cabinet with a view to drawing up an agreed statement which would be the basis of Labour's future policy towards the Community.

Without such an agreed long-term policy we will be unable effectively to champion a serious and substantial programme of reform. We will merely be reacting to events. With such an agreed policy we would be able, in the process of business within the Community, to work for a coherent programme of reform. We should seek to work with other Governments and like-minded parties inside the Community to get a policy of joint action on all or part of the reform programme. Such a course of action will enable a united Labour Movement to offer the British people a programme of radical reform within an evolving European Community. We would once again be the only major political party to offer the British people the prospect of changing those aspects of Community policies which cause dissatisfaction whilst at the same time working for the development of the Community and the growing unity of the people of Europe.

I put these proposals forward believing that they provide an opportunity for us to achieve a policy on which we can all agree.

Yours sincerely,

JIM CALLAGHAN.

R. G. HAYWARD, Esq., CBE.

Oral Answers to Questions — GOVERNOR OF THE BANK OF ENGLAND

Mr. Watkinson: asked the Prime Minister when he proposes next to meet the Governor of the Bank of England.

The Prime Minister: I have no fixed date in mind for such a meeting.

Mr. Watkinson: When my right hon. Friend next meets the Governor of the Bank of England, will he discuss the instability in international money markets? Does he agree that there is a need to control funds of speculative, footloose money which flow through the exchanges and cause problems for the balance of payments, money supply targets and imports and exports? Is it right that Governments should be held to ransom by speculators?

The Prime Minister: The large volume of international footloose funds does cause problems and creates instability in the markets. There is no doubt about that. However, it is much easier to analyse than to control. But the fact that we cannot control it does not mean that we should not indicate that it causes instability and is a cause of altering economic


policies domestically. The best way forward, although a difficult path to pursue, is to try to get agreement on domestic economic policies which are internationally compatible. That, in present circumstances, means that the countries with the stronger economies should expand as far and as fast as they can.

Mrs. Thatcher: As the policies pursued by the Bank of England are Government and Treasury economic policies, will the right hon. Gentleman say whether, apart from productivity deals, 10 per cent. is a maximum figure for all wage increases in the public sector?

The Prime Minister: I was not proposing to discuss this with the Governor of the Bank of England, but, if the right hon. Lady wants an answer to her question, I point out that it has been answered on many occasions. My right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer has made clear that 10 per cent. is the increase in national earnings that would lead to our being able to sustain inflation within single figures during the greater part of 1978. There has been a great improvement in the retail price index and the rate of inflation, which means that inflation has been increasing at only 3·4 per cent. in this last six months. I am not extrapolating that figure because, to some extent, the future rate will depend on the level of wage settlements. But I point out to the right hon. Lady that we are able to foresee that we shall reach single figures for inflation during the next year. The Government's aim is to sustain that improvement as being the most solid foundation for economic progress.

Mrs. Thatcher: I think that the Prime Minister has given the answer—that 10 per cent. is not a maximum figure and. therefore, the firemen would be free to negotiate in the national joint council within the cash limits.

The Prime Minister: No, Sir. The right hon. Lady is not correct. The Government have been pressed time and again, both by hon. Members opposite and by industry, to hold increases in the public sector within the 10 per cent. limit, and that is what we are doing.

Mrs. Thatcher: The Prime Minister has given two different replies. First he said that it was not a maximum, then he said

that it was a maximum in the public sector. Which does he mean?

The Prime Minister: I think that the right hon. Lady is capable of reconciling the two statements. They are reconcilable. National earnings must be held within the 10 per cent. limit. In the public sector, where there is very little wage drift, the Government, in order to give an example to all those in the private sector who are calling upon us not to give way—some of them, I regret to say, are giving way themselves—are adhering to their own policy by not giving way.

Mr. Wrigglesworth: Does not my right hon. Friend agree that one of the difficulties in getting disputes resolved is the comparisons being made often between net and gross pay? Will he try to put a figure on the benefits which have accrued to workers as a result of the tax cuts made by the Government in recent months?

The Prime Minister: Yes, Sir. Such a figure can be put on. I have been preparing it for a speech that I hope to make tomorrow to a trade union conference. For the man on average earnings with two children, the improvement resulting from the tax cuts this year is equivalent to 6½ per cent. of his gross pay. That will be in addition to anything else that is negotiated.

Oral Answers to Questions — MOZAMBIQUE

Mr. Brotherton: asked the Prime Minister if he has any plans to visit Mozambique.

The Prime Minister: I have at present no plans to do so.

Mr. Brotherton: How much longer do the Government intend to subsidise terrorism and murder in Rhodesia through their aid programme to the Marxist Government of Mozambique, who harbour and shelter the murderers who make raids into Rhodesia?

The Prime Minister: Like the rest of his party, the hon. Gentleman is totally isolated from opinion in this matter, including opinion in the United States, in the Commonwealth and in many United Nations countries. The basis on which aid is given was spelt out by me in an answer to the right hon. Member for Knutsford (Mr. Davies) in the early


months of this year. It is clearly set out inHansard. The Opposition would be far better employed in going to see the poverty which exists in some of these areas than in giving encouragement and aid to the régime in Rhodesia.

Mr. Whitehead: Does not my right hon. Friend agree that economic aid for the infrastructure of Mozambique is a guarantee of making less likely rather than more likely its dependence on the Sovietbloc, of which Opposition Members are constantly trying to remind us?

The Prime Minister: Yes, Sir. There is no doubt of that. I would add that President Machel is being of great assistance to this country in relation to events in Rhodesia and is helping, with the other front-line Presidents, to get a settlement. That is unlike the attitude of hon. Members opposite who, in their visits to Rhodesia in the course of the summer, seem to have done nothing but discourage Mr. Smith from coming to any settlement.

Mr. Biggs-Davison: As one who has seen poverty and terrorism in Mozambique, may I ask the Prime Minister whether he has no compunction about the double standards of subsidising and seeking help to secure majority rule in Rhodesia from a régime in Mozambique for which there has been no vote whatever?

The Prime Minister: The fact that there has been no vote in Mozambique should not detract from the hon. Gentleman's support for both Front Benches in this House, who have declared that there should be elections in Rhodesia before independence comes.

Oral Answers to Questions — NATIONAL ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT COUNCIL

Mr. Tim Renton: asked the Prime Minister when he will next take the chair at a meeting of the National Economic Development Council.

The Prime Minister: I hope to take the chair from time to time, but I have no specific date in mind at present.

Mr. Renton: When the Prime Minister next takes the chair, will he give an assurance to the NEDC that the national

revenue from North Sea oil will not be squandered in a further programme of Labour Government extravaganza? Will he also commit himself to seeing that this money, which belongs to us all, is not lost in madcap schemes of the Secretary of State for Industry and the Secretary of State for Energy but goes largely towards increasing personal incentives to work?

The Prime Minister: We have already begun discussions on these matters, and in due course we will publish a paper which will, I hope, carry the debate even further. I do not need to give any such assurance as the hon. Gentleman asks about my meeting with the NEDC, because its members would not dream of asking me such a stupid question.

Mr. Roy Hughes: Does not my right hon. Friend agree that there is need, when he next meets the NEDC, to impress on that body that the British Steel Corporation should sustain its investment programme? Does he not also agree that the Conservative Party seems intent on making Britain into a vast tourist centre while neglecting our manufacturing industry?

The Prime Minister: This is an important matter, although I am not aware that I shall be discussing it with the NEDC. We should not allow what is a very deep world recession in steel, which is leading to losses in steel-making industries throughout the world, including the United States and West Germany, to deter us from long-term investment to ensure that we have a viable industry in this country.

Mr. Pardoe: Will the Prime Minister take a last-minute personal interest in the appointment of the Director of NEDC? Some of us would consider that the appointment of a senior civil servant to this post without any experience of industry—[Interruption.]—coming on top of the appointment of a senior civil servant to head the Central Policy Review Staff—[Interruption.]—is not a happy omen, and that these bodies ought to be in the hands of people with direct experience of industry.

The Prime Minister: The hon. Gentleman, no doubt having heard the shouts, may feel that this is the first encomium that he has had from the Conservative


Benches for a long time, in that they want to appoint him to this very important position. [An HON. MEMBER: "Good God!"] The hon. Member who interrupts, not for the first time, is perhaps not wholly in accord with the rest of his party. But it is important to get the agreement of both sides of industry—namely, the Confederation of British Industry and the Trades Union Congress—on this appointment. The salary that is being offered is really not as luxurious as we might expect and, therefore, there may be some difficulty, but I am sure that we shall find a very appropriate person.

Mr. Buchan: If my right hon. Friend will not be discussing oil revenues with the NEDC, will he go a little further and not discuss this subject with the Treasury either? Above all, will he reject any ideas that the oil revenues should be used in relation to exchange control and overseas investment? Will he settle firmly on the point that any such revenues should be used for the regeneration of those areas in the United Kingdom which did well by Britain in the first Industrial Revolution and should now be brought into the twentieth century by proper industrial investment in them?

The Prime Minister: I find the Treasury a very great repository of knowledge and information, and I treat its advice with due deference on all occasions. On this particular matter, however, I do not think that we should assume that there is any desire on the part of Her Majesty's Treasury to attempt to do other than find the right solution for these problems. There really are occasions when it is not a bad idea to repay a little debt. But that should not detract from the general point my hon. Friend is making, and which I have made on several occasions from this Dispatch Box, namely, that these revenues should be used for a long overdue regeneration of British industry, that being the basic task to which we must address ourselves while these revenues are coming into the country.

Mr. McCrindle: In view of the Government's recently discovered interest in small businesses, will the Prime Minister confirm that he feels that he receives the reaction of small businesses and knows what they are really thinking, if and when he takes the chair of the NEDC?

The Prime Minister: I am not sure that I do. I find that there is more value in getting to know what small businesses are saying by visiting them. I visited two last Friday and had very interesting discussions with them. They are feeling extremely encouraged by the measures that the Government are now taking, with the tax provisions which are being made and with the advantages which are being received. I am sorry if this is robbing the Opposition of a group of people whom they thought they had in their pockets. But I think it is important that we should encourage small businesses, and have thought so for some time, because they employ about 22 per cent. of the total labour force in this country.

Several Hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Speaker: I allowed "injury time" because we were late in starting Prime Minister's Questions.

MR. SPEAKER'S CONFERENCE ON ELECTORAL LAW

Mr. Speaker: The House will recall that on 19th July last I announced the names of the right hon. and hon. Members who had agreed to serve on my Conference on Electoral Law. Since that date the hon. Member for Esher (Mr. Mather) has notified me that he has been obliged to withdraw because of other commitments. I am grateful to the hon. Member for Buckingham (Mr. Benyon), who has accepted my invitation to serve in place of the hon. Member for Esher.

STATUTORY INSTRUMENTS &c.

Mr. Speaker: With the leave of the House, I will put together the 11 motions relating to Statutory Instruments.

Ordered,
That the Value Added Tax (International Services) Order 1977 (S.I., 1977, No. 1791) be referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &amp;c.
That the Value Added Tax (Insurance) Order 1977 (S.I., 1977, No. 1794) be referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &amp;c.
That the Value Added Tax (Finance) Order 1977 (S.I., 1977, No. 1797) be referred to Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &amp;c.
That the Value Added Tax (Gold) Order 1977 (S.I., 1977, No. 1789) be referred to a


Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &amp;c.
That the Value Added Tax (Education) Order 1977 (S.I., 1977, No. 1787) be referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &amp;c.
That the Value Added Tax (Higher Rate) Order 1977 (S.I., 1977, No. 1786) be referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &amp;c.
That the Value Added Tax (Construction of Buildings, etc.) Order 1977 (S.I., 1977, No. 1792) be referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &amp;c.
That the Value Added Tax (International Services) (No. 2) Order 1977 (S I., 1977, No. 1849) be referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &amp;c.
That the draft Agricultural Products Processing and Marketing (Improvement Grant) Regulations 1977 be referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &amp;c.
That the draft Water Charges Equalisation Order 1977 be referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &amp;c.
That—

(a) of the allotted days which under the Order [16th November] are given to the remaining proceedings on the Bill, 14 shall be allotted to the proceedings in Committee and the remainder to proceedings on Consideration and Third Reading;
(b) the Bill shall be considered in Committee in the order shown in the Table set out below; and
(c) the 14 days allotted to the proceedings in Committee shall be allotted in the manner shown in that Table and, subject to the provisions of that Order, each part of the proceedings shall, if not previously brought to a conclusion, be brought to a conclusion at the time specified in the third column of that Table.

TABLE


Allotted day
Proceedings in Committee
Time for conclusion


First and second days
Clause 1.
7 p.m. on first day



Clause 2,




 Schedule 1,




Clause3.
7 p.m. on second day



Clauses 4 to 17.
11 p.m. on second day


Third day
Clauses 18 and 19.




Schedule 2.
11 p.m.


Fourth day
Clause 20.
7 p.m.



Clause 21.
10 p.m.


Fourth and fifth days
Clause 22,




Schedule 3,




Clause 23,




Schedules 4 and 5.
6 p.m. on fifth day



Clause 24,




Schedule 6,




Clauses 25 to 32.
8 p.m. on fifth day


Fifth and sixth days
Clauses 33 to 38.
7 p.m. on sixth day



Clause 39,




Schedule 7,




Clauses 40 and 41.




Schedule 8.
11 p.m. on sixth day


Seventh day
Clauses 42 to 59,




Schedule 9,




Clause 60.
11 p.m.

That the draft Employment Protection (Variation of Limits) Order 1974 be referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &c.—[Mr. Foot.]

SCOTLAND BILL (BUSINESS COMMITTEE)

Ordered,
That the Report [17th November] of the Business Committee be now considered.—[Mr. Foot.]

Report considered accordingly.

Question,
That this House doth agree with the Committee in their Resolution.—[Mr. Foot.]

put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 43 (Business Committee), and agreed to.

Following is the report of the Business Committee:

Allotted day
Proceedings in Committee
Time for conclusion


Eighth, ninth and tenth days
Clause 61,




Schedules 10 and 11,




Clause 62.
9 p.m. on tenth day


Tenth day
Clause 63,




Schedule 12.
11 p.m.


Eleventh day
Clauses 64 to 66,




Schedule 13,




Clauses 67 and 68,




Schedule 14,




Clauses 69 to 80,




Schedule 15.
11 p.m.


Twelfth day
Clauses 81 to 83,




Schedule 17.
11 p.m.


Thirteenth and fourteenth days
New clauses,




new Schedules.
9 p.m. on fourteenth day



Schedule 16.
11 p.m. on fourteenth day

Orders of the Day — SCOTLAND BILL

[1ST ALLOTTED DAY]

Considered in Committee.

[Mr. OSCAR MURTONin the Chair]

The Chairman: The first group of amendments which has been selected is No. 2.

Mr. Francis Pym: On a point of order, Mr. Murton. I refer to the second group of amendments below the first line, that is to say, the group which begins with Amendment No. 19 and has a number of other amendments attached to it. May I put it to you, Mr. Murton, that Amendment No. 19 ought to be segregated from that group and listed separately? The point is that Amendment No. 20 and all the others with it relate to the size of the Assembly, the method of election, constituencies and so forth. They can therefore be said to fall together. But Amendment No. 19 is rather different, because it relates to an Assembly the members of which are Members of Parliament for Scottish constituencies. That seems to me to be a fundamentally different point, and I submit that it would be for the convenience of the House and, indeed, altogether appropriate, that it should be taken separately.

The Chairman: In answer to the submission by the right hon. Member for Cambridgeshire (Mr. Pym), I point out that I looked very carefully at the amendment in the name of the right hon. Member for Renfrewshire, East (Miss Harvie Anderson) and her hon. Friends on the question whether I would be in order in taking this amendment separately from the group. But, after very deep thought on this matter, I came to the conclusion that it must be to the advantage of the Committee to discuss the whole group together, because of the limited time which is available to the Committee for dealing with these several matters.

Mr. Tam Dalyell: On a further point of order, Mr. Murton. I have given notice of this point of order. I know that you will have given careful consideration, in your usual way, to Amendment No. 1, but I ask you to

reflect on this decision. Adding the words "and England" after "Scotland" is, in our submission, not a matter of opinion or a matter of judgment but a matter of accurate fact Those of us who put forward this amendment hold that a novel principle has been introduced, that is, the power of speaking and, above all, voting money without responsibility, that 71 Scots mongrel Members of the House of Commons, as we would put it, would have in deciding the most delicate issues of English politics without having anylocus, any more than English Members would have in relation to some matters in Scottish constituencies.
I do not want to elaborate on the so-called West Lothian question, but let no one imagine that such a situation would not alter the very basis of the way in which England is governed. I ask you, therefore, for the sake of truthfulness, to accept that Amendment No. 1 might be considered.

The Chairman: I should like to thank the hon. Member for West Lothian (Mr. Dalyell) for the courteous manner in which he has advanced his argument. I fully acknowledge the strength of feeling which the hon. Member attaches to the importance of this amendment but, nevertheless, after very careful consideration I have decided that I ought not to select the amendment standing in his name and in the names of his hon. Friends the Members for Pontypool (Mr. Abse) and Islington, South and Finsbury (Mr. Cunningham).

Mr. George Cunningham: On a point of order, Mr. Murton. Can you help us by telling us what your intentions are with regard to the calling of Divisions on amendments which are attached to the first amendment stated in each group?

The Chairman: I am perfectly prepared to consider representations as they are made when the time approaches.

Mr. Cunningham: Further to that point of order, Mr. Murton. Does that mean that if one wanted to have a Division on an amendment which was grouped with another amendment but not coming first on the list, it would be necessary to bring the vote on the first amendment to a conclusion so that the second


amendment can be moved before we run out of guillotine time? Am I right?

The Chairman: Yes.

Clause 1

EFFECT OF ACT

3.43 p.m.

Mr. Pym: I beg to move Amendment No. 2, in page 1, line 8, leave out 'They do not affect' and insert:
'Nothing in these provisions shall be construed as impairing or in any way affecting'.

The Chairman: With this we may take the following amendments:

No. 160, in page 1, line 8, leave out from 'Kingdom' to end of line 11 and insert:
'Nothing in this Act shall affect the unity of the UK in any way whatsoever.'.

No. 3, in page 1, line 8, leave out 'They do not affect' and insert:
'Nothing in this Act shall be construed so as to affect adversely or shall detract from, harm or weaken'.

No. 4, in page 1, line 8, leave out 'do' and insert 'shall'.

No. 6, in page 1, line 9, after 'affect', insert:
'adversely nor detract from, harm or weaken'.

No. 7, in page 1, line 9, leave out
'the unity of the United Kingdom or'.

No. 8, in page 1, line 9, leave out from 'Kingdom' to end of line 11.

No. 9, in page 1, line 10, after 'authority', insert 'sovereignty and competence'.

No. 10, in page 1, line 11, at end add
'nor shall they alter prerogatives, rights, duties, privileges and conventions of the Crown as the constitutional monarchy of the United Kingdom'.

No. 11, in page 1, line 11, at end add
'and no provision, power or privilege granted in any section of the Act may be so used in any way which might in any manner affect the unity of the United Kingdom'.

No. 13, in page 1, line 11, at end insert
'including laws on matters which are devolved to the Scottish Assembly under this Act'.

No. 14, in page 1, line 11, at end insert

'or the existing rights, responsibilities and duties of Members of Parliament representing any part of the United Kingdom'.

Mr. Pym: I make no apology to the Committee for repeating this amendment, which was moved by my hon. Friend the Member for Cleveland and Whitby (Mr. Brittan) nearly a year ago. I do not think it would be possible to say that the case today is stronger than it was in January, because it was overwhelming then and it was overwhelmingly put by my hon. Friend. But in the meantime, if anything, the doubts and anxieties have increased.
No amount of discussion or argument since last January has removed from this House the knowledge that we are dealing with the unity of the United Kingdom. There is, in fact, a tacit admission of this in the Bill by virtue of the fact that this clause is included at all. Otherwise, why would it be included? We do not accept now, any more than we did in January, the sentence in Clause 1:
They"—
That is, the provisions in the Bill—
do not affect the unity of the United Kingdom".
We believe that to be certainly misleading and in point of fact untrue.
I would remind the Minister of State that in his reply to the debate in January he said:
I believe that the clause not only will not diminish the unity of the United Kingdom but will enhance it.
I hope that when winding up the debate tonight he will explain exactly what he means by that, because we do not understand what he means.
No words in any Bill can enhance the actual living reality of our unity in this country. But that unity can certainly be destroyed by words in a Bill, and many of us think that this Bill could do just that. In saying that, I am not talking of devolution in principle or of finding some new way for improving or adjusting government in a way that will be more satisfactory. What I am talking about is devolution as outlined in the Bill.
The Minister also said in the same debate:
Our unity does not have to depend on enforced conformity from the centre. It can rest on recognising the diversity within our system."—[Official Report, 19th January 1977, Vol. 924, c. 506–11.]


I totally agree with him. But that diversity must make sense as it has in a practical way for many decades.
No one in this House denies that our country is one of infinite variety and diversity. We also know that it has been highly successful in combining that variety and diversity into a complete unity and entity. It is because it has been so successful that we need to be very careful indeed before we upset the balance.
It is our view that the method outlined in the Bill will affect the unity of the United Kingdom and, indeed, will be disruptive of it. That is why we dislike the offending sentence. It is more than a bland assertion. It appears to be an attempt to give some degree of reassurance about a matter which is assumed to be in doubt, for otherwise it would not be there. Yet reassurance is not possible and none is capable of being produced.
The most important way in which unity will be affected is through the impact of the Bill on this House. That impact is more than just an anomaly which the Government have never answered or even attempted to answer. It produces a contradiction which has justly become known as the West Lothian question.
Under the Bill Scotland becomes a kind of quasi-federal part of the United Kingdom which is a unitary State. Members of Parliament in this House will not be able to vote on all sorts of matters in Scotland for which they will be able to vote in other parts of the United Kingdom. To this day that remains an unanswered point which is the central anxiety about the principle in the whole Bill.
Wales is to be treated differently by another Bill with Members of this House legislating for Wales but not having any responsibility for carrying out that legislation, which is to be devolved to a different sort of Assembly. Northern Ireland is to be different yet again, although we do not quite know in what way. However, it will certainly be different. England, as it were by default, is directly affected as a consequence of these other changes.
The Government themselves acknowledge that by the publication of their White Paper on the English regions, which clearly indicates that there are consequences and implications for England

as a result of the other changes in the other parts of the United Kingdom. Therefore, I say to the Minister of State that five different roles are envisaged for this House. In dealing with United Kingdom business there will be a different rôle for each part of the United Kingdom and a different one for the United Kingdom as a whole. That is the impact which this Bill, together with the Wales Bill, will have on this House.
I am afraid that the result will be that this House will become divided against itself in a new way on issues relating to the constituent parts of the United Kingdom. Our fear is that that will give rise to rivalries and jealousies and that these will be encouraged rather than the reverse. I think that we are already conscious in this House of mounting tensions of this kind. It is something of very recent experience in the last year. The impact that this will have on this House and the threat that it will have to the preservation of this unity goes to the very heart of our union.
In the case of Scotland the proposals will lead to friction and to an unsustainable level of difference between Scotland and Westminster. They will certainly be divisive. Of course, disagreement is bound to arise in any form of devolution, however it takes place, but the scale of it under the method proposed in the Bill will be too great.
This divisiveness between Scotland and Westminster is, I regret to say, encouraged by the lack of good will that exists today between the parties here and by the refusal of the Government to make any attempt on an all-party basis to approach the problem—as we have done in the case of Northern Ireland—and by the Government giving top priority, with no particular attempt to disguise it, to trying to save their seats in Scotland instead of trying to find a better method of actually improving government in Scotland.

Mr. Dalyell: Perhaps at an early stage in our proceedings and for the sake of clarity the hon. Gentleman will allow me to ask him a straight question. If he gets the all-party discussions that he wants, does he want any kind of an Assembly in Edinburgh? Would he like to see, as a result of these all-party discussions, the establishment of some kind of Assembly?

Mr. Pym: I have made it clear before—indeed, I said so on Second Reading—that all the parties have come to that conclusion. However, all the parties have also found snags in every proposal which has been made. It is for precisely that reason that I want the parties to sit round a table and thrash out what they want. I covered that point on Second Reading.
The unity of the United Kingdom will also be affected by the financial arrangements proposed in the Bill. Certainly they will give rise to disagreements. The implications in the Bill for the economic management of the economy of the United Kingdom are considerable, because, for the first time, there will be a division between the management of social policy and all aspects of social policy in Scotland from the management of economic policy for the United Kingdom as a whole. What is more, there is a division as between the Assembly as it is proposed in the Bill, deciding how to spend other people's money in Scotland and the fact that it will be without any of the responsibility for raising any of that money. I cannot think that that will be other than divisive and the cause of a great deal of friction.
These are the main reasons why inevitably the unity of our country will be put at risk. What should we on the Opposition Benches do, faced with this clause and faced with the lack of truthfulness in the sentence to which I have referred? Shall we try to remove it, or to amend it?
Frankly, we would prefer to remove it altogether. However, in a constructive sense we have put forward Amendment No. 2, and grouped with it is Amendment No. 9, which is an attempt to provide the courts at a future date with a fairer basis upon which to decide the intentions of the Bill and what the intentions of Parliament were when we debated the Bill.
I remind the Minister of State that in his winding-up speech last January he said that the reason why he was confident that the declaration in principle was correct was that we were not devolving sovereignty. I make two comments about that. First, the Minister of State made no attempt in that speech to answer the question raised by the right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell), who pointed out that, historically, whenever a

matter of devolving powers had been dealt with before, be it in Ireland or anywhere else, what had happened was that the sovereignty was used effectively by the authority to which it had been devolved and that this House forgot about it. The right hon. Gentleman then pointed out that it was impossible to act in a sovereign capacity one month and not the next, or one year and not the next year, and that it had to be on a permanent basis. There was no attempt by the Minister to answer that very fundamental point.
My second comment is that if the Minister believes what he said about sovereignty in his speech last January, the Government could very well accept Amendment No. 9, which proposes to insert in line 10 of Clause 1, after the word "authority" the words "sovereignty and competence". I think that that would cover the point which the Minister of State himself made. Therefore, I urge him to accept this amendment.
The Minister is extremely fond of trying to tease me, if that is the right word, about the House of Commons failing to pass any amendment to the 1972 European Communities Bill. It seems to me that in moving the very first amendment in this Committee stage I have the opportunity to say to the hon. Gentleman that this is one amendment which obviously he should accept. I hope that he will accept it, because it is completely the point which he himself made in January last.

The Minister of State, Privy Council Office (Mr. John Smith): Is the right hon. Gentleman putting that proposition to me on the basis that I should have higher standards than those which he exhibited?

Mr. Pym: On the contrary. I said that the House of Commons in Committee decided what it did on the European Communities Bill. But the hon. Gentleman likes to chide me with the responsibility for what the House of Commons decided. He cannot commit the House of Commons, now in Committee, but I am saying that, if he is very keen that amendments which seem appropriate are accepted, I am giving him the opportunity with the first amendment to be considered in Committee to say that this is obviously one which he could and should accept.
I wish to draw the Committee's attention to the referendum provision, in


Schedule 17, and to point out that in the Appendix to the Schedule these words appear:
The Act provides…that Scotland should remain part of the United Kingdom.
As a statement of fact at this moment or at that moment I suppose that that would be true. But the point about the argument is that the very existence of this Bill, if it becomes an Act, sets in train a process which could be disruptive to both Scotland and the United Kingdom, and there is no indication of this in the preamble to the question proposed for the referendum.
I mention that at this stage because I am sure that we shall come to it when we discuss the referendum. I am sure that we must be certain that in no sense are we misleading the people of Scotland or, for that matter, of the rest of the United Kingdom in any question that we put to them in a referendum. It is not that the fact stated there is actually wrong at that time. It is that what has happened in this Bill could prove it to be wrong very quickly.
I am not saying that if, by some misfortune, this scheme were put into effect, on the morrow of an Assembly taking over the government of Scotland would break down. I am saying that the underlying seeds of frustration which it will sow are very likely eventually to cause problems. The fear of the Opposition is that men of good will will be hindered by the defects inherent in the system itself and that that will lead to frustration and bitterness. What will that do for the unity of the United Kingdom? It is bound to be damaging to it.

Mr. Russell Johnston: Essentially, what the right hon. Gentleman is contending is that it is impossible to have unity as he conceives it in anything other than a wholly unitary State and that if we engage ourselves in the kind of devolution on which the Government have embarked, far less than federalism, this willper se breach the unity which he and I think is good. I do not think that that is a fair argument.

Mr. Pym: I have been arguing in public for months that the Prime Minister was right when he said that it was not possible to have a quasi-federal part of a country which was a unitary State, such as ours. I think that this Bill tries

to turn Scotland into a quasi-federal State within a unitary system and that the impact of that will hit us right here in this House. It was on that very point that we lost Ireland. If this Bill goes through and is carried into effect, it is on this very point that we might lose Scotland. We are dedicated to the cause of preventing that.
It is for precisely those reasons that we are opposed to the Bill. It will be divisive. It will produce friction. It will produce too many disagreements. It will produce a nonsense here. Therefore, I do not think that it can possibly last. It will lead to bitterness and frustration.

Mr. Dalyell: rose—

Mr. Pym: I shall not give way to the hon. Gentleman. I am about to conclude my remarks. This is a very limited debate. The hon. Gentleman can no doubt make his own speech. I am answering the question raised by the hon. Member for Inverness (Mr. Johnson), and it is a fundamental one.
I hope that I have made the views of the Opposition quite clear. We believe that Clause 1 is a confession of weakness on the part of the Government. It contains a sentence which we think is positively inaccurate and misleading. It should not be there. In a constructive sense we have tabled these amendments with a view to making some improvements and to giving it some degree of veracity.

Mr. Dalyell: All of us will have to be brief, but I wish to take up the argument advanced by the right hon. Member for Cambridgeshire (Mr. Pym) because, frankly, I think that this is a fudging amendment.
I listened very carefully to the last five minutes of the right hon. Gentleman's speech. The question that I would ask the right hon. Gentleman is whether any kind of Assembly, an Assembly of his choosing, would not be open to precisely the same kind of criticisms as he has made of my right hon. Friend's scheme.

Mr. Pym: I certainly do not think so. It depends on what powers and what responsibilities one gives to it and on how it is arranged and organised. That is what I think.

4.0 p.m.

Mr. Dalyell: Let us imagine the situation. Any group of Assemblymen going to the Royal High School for the first time will discover, within days rather than weeks, how very limited their powers are in their own estimation. Can one imagine my hon. Friend the Member for Berwick and East Lothian (Mr. Mackintosh), who has put down many amendments, the hon. Member for South Ayrshire (Mr. Sillars), or anybody else being satisfied with the kind of Assembly even that my right hon. Friend has put forward, still less with that which the right hon. Gentleman puts forward? Once they have arrived there, there is no chance whatever of their being satisfied. Of course they will want more in these circumstances.
Therefore, I think that it is a bit disingenuous to say "Oh well, we shall have a long conference. We shall have all parties together. We shall have a meeting and have a good discussion, and somehow at the end of the day something acceptable will arise from it." I do not think that that is a very realistic attitude, because the truth is that there is absolutely no chance of their being satisfied with either the right hon. Gentleman's kind of Assembly or the kind of Assembly that my right hon. Friends are putting forward, or, indeed, with any other kind of Assembly.
Therefore, I think that this is a fudging amendment. Very soon in the passage of the Bill Opposition Members will have to make up their minds whether they want any kind of Assembly, because they will become convincing from their Front Bench only once they say "We do not want an Assembly at all." I realise that that might create great difficulties inside the Conservative Party, but until that crunch decision is reached there is no hope of the Opposition Front Bench being convincing on this issue.

Mr. Douglas Crawford: Perhaps I could help the hon. Gentleman. The right hon. Member for Cambridgeshire (Mr. Pym) gave away the game of the Opposition Front Bench when he referred to losing Ireland. Does the hon. Member agree that this is reminiscent of the English Ministers who said, "We have catched Scotland and we shall not let it go"?

Mr. Dalyell: I think that we each have to make our own speeches. I could be tempted to go on at length on this issue. But, clearly, at this early stage we must all set an example and not be so tempted.
My trouble with this clause and this amendment is that I think that it is incomplete almost to the point of falsehood. I am not accusing anybody of being a liar. That is not the way in which I propose to operate in this Committee. But I think that the clause itself is a fundamental lie.
It is incomplete to the point of being a lie because if this Bill becomes an Act, the government of England will never be the same again. Never in history have 71 outsiders—we could argue as to hether it is 119, with the Welsh and the Irish but, anyhow, we are on the Scotland Bill, so for the sake of accuracy and peace let us restrict ourselves to 71 Scots—been able, at any rate not since the time of Queen Elizabeth, to vote on matters relating to England from outside. This really is the introduction of power without responsibility.
This is a novel principle, and therefore, because it is a novel principle, it seems to me that the government of England is affected.
It would be much more truthful to say so. I do not see why it is damaging to the Bill, because I do not see this as a wrecking amendment. As the Committee knows, I am very clear on the principle of wrecking amendments.

Mr. David Steel: The hon. Member talks about novel principles. Will he stop to contemplate the existing procedure, whereby we conscript Members who represent English constituencies into the Scottish Grand Committee? Is not that precisely the kind of anomaly about which he is talking?

Mr. Dalyell: No, it is different. It is different because the whole issue of sustaining Governments comes into it, and that makes it rather different.
I have promised to be brief. I shall end by reflecting that in fact what will happen to any group of Assemblymen when they arrive is that, sooner rather than later, they will be forced by the


circumstances of the situation, by lack of powers, to become covert nationalists.
If we pass the Bill with this kind of clause, well may hon. Gentlemen on the third row below the Gangway opposite laugh, because they know perfectly well that they will be the beneficiaries—not my hon. Friends, not the Conservative Party and not even the Liberal Party. I thought that it was quite right and very symptomatic that at the end of Wednesday night the Order Papers should be waved not by my hon. Friends but by the hon. Gentlemen in the third row below the Gangway, because they are the beneficiaries of this exercise.

Mr. J. Enoch Powell: I find myself sharing the difficulties of the hon. Member for West Lothian (Mr. Dalyell) when confronted with this clause and amendments to it. The fact is that no amendments that could possibly be drafted to this clause could remedy the difficulty, for the difficulty is in the Bill itself, in what the Bill is trying to do. The nature of it is thrown up by contrast by the attempted amendments to this clause.
The statement in Clause 1 belongs to the class of statements which are made by those who do not believe them or who hope that they might perhaps be true but are not sure about it. They are not the sort of statements which are ever made by those to whom the matter in question is a certainty. The very fact of the clause being in the Bill is an expression at least of doubt and uncertainty. I should, indeed, say, of more than doubt or uncertainty. It is tantamount to an admission of the reverse.
This is a clause, as I pointed out during our previous bite at this bad apple—I shall not do so again at length—which has a history; and it is a sad history. It was used in the 1914 Government of Ireland Act to make a statement which was visibly untrue then and was presently proved in practice to be untrue—which is why at any rate the word "power", which featured in the 1914 version, was wisely omitted from the 1920 version. The statement made in 1924 that the devolution as then contemplated to an elected Assembly in Dublin of legislative power in the island of Ireland did not affect the unity of the United Kingdom or the sovereignty of Parliament, was a patent untruth and was exploded before that Act could ever

be put into effect; but the bit that was blown off the 1914 Act, the northern part of the 1920 Act, did in fact remain on the statute book in a modified form, which continued in existence for exactly 50 years.
We can learn a great deal from those 50 years, and from the way in which that period ended, about the dangers of the course upon which we seek to enter by this Bill.
I hope that the opportunity will be taken in this debate to perform what the Secretary of State for Scotland on Second Reading on 14th November so signally failed to perform. He was asked by the hon. Member for Aylesbury (Mr. Raison) to confirm that Scottish—and indeed English—Members would no longer be able to raise Adjournment debates and so forth on the subjects of health, housing, education and so on, for the reason that those matters would not be within the competence of the Secretary of State and therefore there would be no answerability. Whether owing to a fault of hearing or otherwise, the immediate reply of the Secretary of State was that the proposition of the hon. Member for Aylesbury was "not true".
A few lines later however he said:
Of course it will not be possible to raise with the Secretary of State for Scotland matters for which he is not responsible. That is absolutely rudimentary, and I am surprised that there should be any doubt about it."—[Official Report, 14th November, 1977; Vol 939, c. 58].
I hope that we shall have from the Government—as this matter is of utmost constitutional seriousness—a clear definition, with the full authority of the Government on the advice of the Law Officers, of the extent to which, and the form in which, matters devolved to the Scottish Assembly under the Bill will be able to be raised and debated in this House; for except in so far as these matters can still be raised and debated in the House, Clause 1 becomes not merely a lie but a most dangerous lie.
It asserts that this House, or Parliament of which this House is a part, has the supreme authority
to make laws…for any part
of the United Kingdom, including Scotland. Now, to say, on the one hand, that a whole series of the affairs of Scotland may not be raised or debated in the


House and are not within the responsibility of the Government who are answerable to the House, and to assert quite blandly on the other hand that this House can make laws for Scotland on these affairs, is to court the most dangerous collision possible.
Legislation does not take place in a vacuum. The Government or a private Member do not stand up out of the blue and, on a subject that does not engage our attention and is not within the competence of the Government or hon. Members, suddenly propose legislation. The legislation of this House is an integral part of the control of this House over the Executive and of the supreme authority of Parliament over all persons and causes inside the realm. It is one expression—and only one expression—of our supreme political responsibility.
To pretend that one can, without disaster, dismiss a whole range of subjects concerning 5 million of Her Majesty's subjects in this kingdom, that one can year after year prevent hon. Members from debating these matters concerning them in this House, and then proceed to legislate upon them here—

Mr. Douglas Henderson: Surely the right hon. Gentleman must accept that it is a consequence of devolution that those matters within the jurisdiction and discretion of the Scottish Assembly and Executive should not concern hon. Members of this House.

Mr. Powell: I thank the hon. Member for his assistance and his confirmation of what I have been saying. That is what the Bill envisages and that is why it is a fact—unless this is contradicted this afternoon—that these matters are not within the competence of the Secretary of State as a member of the Government, being not matters for which he is responsible. Having established that, I say that it is impossible, without courting disaster, to pretend, or ever to seek to act upon the pretence, that this House will still have authority to make laws on those matters, at any rate for that part of the kingdom.
We have had a practical example of such a pretence and of its working out. This is where the experience of Northern Ireland is highly relevant to our debate this afternoon. For 47 years this House dissociated itself—upon the constitu

tional principles asserted by the Secretary, of State for Scotland in the context of this Bill—from responsibility for all matters within the competence of the Stormont Parliament. Then, after 47 years, this House in 1969 found itself, or believed itself to be, obliged to give reality to the overriding responsibility and authority which was asserted in Clause 75 of the Government of Ireland Act 1920.
4.15 p.m.
The result was that the management of the affairs of Northern Ireland, a part of the kingdom, and the legislation for Northern Ireland passed into the hands of an Executive and Parliament which had not concerned itself with the facts and affairs of Northern Ireland for two generations though I pay full recognition to the fact that hon. Members of this House, particularly from the Labour benches, did at intervals during those 50 years protest against the fundamental inconsistency involved.
The consequence that we reaped was that, at the expense of the people of Northern Ireland, at the expense of a series of blunders which had to be painfully reversed later, this House and successive Governments had to learn anew the fundamental facts and circumstances of Northern Ireland. A great part of the tragedy of the last eight years in Northern Ireland arises out of the same contradiction as is implicit in the first clause of this Bill—the pretence that we have indeed retained the unity of the Kingdom while denying to the House that continuing responsibility and concern with affairs of all parts of the Kingdom which is indissociable from its unity.
One cannot foresee or foretell the exact forms under which this clause will avenge itself, but the Committee may be sure that if we persist in enacting what is proposed in this Bill and still imagine, or, even worse, attempt to act upon the imagination, that this Parliament of the United Kingdom has retained its sovereignty and responsibility intact, the consequences will be rued by all parts of the Kingdom.
In the terms of the amendment we are asked the recognise that what we are doing is incompatible with the unity of the realm.

Sir David Renton: While not dissenting from what the right


hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell) has said, I wish to attack Clause 1 and support the amendment moved by my right hon. Friend the Member for Cambridgeshire (Mr. Pym) on other grounds, not so far expressed.
It is an important and long-established principle of legislation that a Bill should contain law and not expressions of opinion or propaganda. Expressions of opinion, whether right or wrong, good or bad, controversial or agreed, have for years been considered irrelevant to legislation.
Clause 1 offends that principle in the most glaring manner. It is not the first sentence that offends although I agree with the hon. Member for West Lothian (Mr. Dalyell) that the words "and England" might have been added. However, if one reads the second sentence one sees that it says that the provisions of the Act
… do not affect the unity of the United Kingdom.
That is a mere statement of opinion and what is more, it is a controversial statement of opinion; indeed, it is propaganda. I strongly suspect that it has been put in as a sort of paving sentence in order to make way for what is to be done by the Government when the referendum comes. It really should not be accepted as legislation.
A statement of intention or purpose in a Bill is quite different. That would refer to what the Bill intends to achieve rather than being a controversial expression of opinion about what the Government think it might, or is hoped to, achieve or not to achieve.
Statements of intention, as was pointed out by the Committee on the Preparation of Legislation, can be helpful. They can help a Bill to be better understood first by Parliament and, secondly, in the country—and understood especially by those who have to advise on the effects of a Bill. Statements of intention and purpose can help the courts to interpret a Bill more in accordance with the will of Parliament. That is all right, and it is why I support the amendment tabled by my right hon. Friend the Member for Cambridgeshire because it contains a clear statement of purpose which is within the principles of legislation. It says:

Nothing in these provisions shall be construed as impairing or in any way affecting"—
then it goes on
the unity of the United Kingdom".
The Government should welcome what has been proposed with open arms. It will get them out of a most terrible drafting error which has been made and one which will be ridiculed as it lies on the statute book, if and when this Bill is passed. A statement of purpose can help a Bill to be better understood. But a controversial statement such as this, on which opinion has already been expressed, is deeply dividing. Far from allowing the Bill to be better understood, it causes it to be misunderstood because the statement itself is misleading.
I fully endorse what the right hon. Member for Down, South said—namely, that the statement was inserted because of the doubt which is inherent in it. In those circumstances it is wrong for the Government to legislate entirely contrary to long-established practices evolving over the centuries in this House, whereby we make laws by our legislation and do not indulge in propaganda whether controversial or otherwise. For these reasons, I intend to support my right hon. Friend's amendment.

Mr. Dalyell: Does the right hon. and learned Gentleman recollect that his colleague on the Kilbrandon Commission, Mrs. Nancy Trenaman, made the point several times that, in the light of what has happened since and in the absence of good will, she would not now support many of the Kilbrandon recommendations because they were made on the assumptions of good will? Will he, as a fellow member of the Commission, confirm that?

Sir D. Renton: The hon. Gentleman has no doubt asked me that question based on the fact that I was a member of the Kilbrandon Commission. I was not aware of Mrs. Nancy Trenaman's statement to that effect. I believe that on the Commission, although we disagreed on solutions to be recommended, everybody assumed that there would be a degree of good will, which, in the circumstances, has not prevailed.
I hope that the Minister of State will not take it amiss if I say that the provisions which he has put forward have done


a lot to destroy such good will on devolution as undoubtedly existed on the Kilbrandon Commission. There was good will. I wanted to see the minimum of devolution. There were others who wanted to go near to a federal solution, but who declared that it was not federal. However, there was undoubtedly a keen desire to try to put something forward to Parliament for the Government of the day to consider which would retain good will. I think that Mrs. Trenaman's comment, coming as it does to me without prior knowledge and put unexpectedly to me across the Floor, is fairly pertinent.

Mr. Timothy Raison: I should like a little later to refer to my Amendments Nos. 13 and 14, the subject matter of which has already been mentioned by the right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell). However, I wish first to comment on some of the other amendments that are now before us.
I believe that Clause 1 is virtuous in intent, but I share the view of the hon. Member for West Lothian (Mr. Dalyell) that it is wholly inaccurate in description. Indeed, it is a lying clause because it does not describe what happens in the rest of the Bill.
I welcome one ingredient in Clause 1, which is an implied rejection of federalism. It is true that the Government's Bill in its revised version is in no sense a federal Bill, and I am pleased about that. As the Committee knows, there are, broadly speaking, two different versions of federalism which may be applied to this matter. One is a federation consisting of four parts—England, Scotland, Northern Ireland and Wales. The other is a federation consisting of Scotland, Wales, Northern Ireland and a rag-bag of English regions. It is largely accepted that the first of these will be hopelessly unbalanced, and I was pleased that the Government last week, if only in a furtive way, made it clear that they had found widespread resistance in England to the application of any form of English regionalism. To that extent I agree with the Government, which makes a change compared with my views on the rest of their policies.
Since federalism has been resolutely rejected, the Liberal Party is left in an odd position. We may recall that on

22nd February the Leader of the Liberal Party, whom I am glad to see here, said:
if we are to go for devolution at all, we should operate on a federalist principle with powers that are divided and not overlapping."—[Official Report, 22nd February 1977; Vol. 926, c. 1270.]
We now see that we have nowhere near that situation. We have not a Bill which meets the request, or indeed the demand, of the Leader of the Liberal Party, and it is evident that on this occasion, as in so many other matters, he has simply accepted what the Government have toil him to do.
We have still before us some kind of unitary system. My Amendment No. 13 is designed to confirm that Parliament can still legislate in these circumstances. I am not sure that the right hon. Member for Down, South picked up this point fully in his remarks. It is one of the interesting facts of the Government's scheme that there is nothing in it to stop a Private Member who is lucky enough to draw a place in the Ballot bringing forward a Bill covering Scotland as well as England. That is one of the ingredients of the scheme. I raised this matter last Session and, although the Lord President did not deal with the matter, the Minister of State, who is a little better versed in these matters, confirmed that under the Government's scheme it will still be possible for hon. Members to legislate on devolved matters in Scotland.
That provision, which by and large I welcome, has a great bearing on Clause 1 because it is obvious that this situation would be liable to lead to considerable friction. It is one more example of the fact that this whole Bill will produce friction rather than prop up the unity of the United Kingdom. Perhaps Scottish Members should understand this point, and I am not sure that they all do. The Government hope that there will be some kind of convention. They hope that there will be what I have described as a self-denying non-ordinance, and that Members of the House will elect not to legislate on Scottish matters, but there is nothing to make sure that this will happen. I can well imagine that an hon. Member wishing to abolish corporal punishment, for example, might bring in a Private Bill to abolish the tawse in Scotland just as it would abolish other forms of corporal punishment in England—

4.30 p.m.

Mr. Graham Page: Or to restore it.

Mr. Raison: —or, as my right hon. Friend, who takes a different view on these matters, has said, to restore it—and there would be nothing except the Whips to prevent that sort of legislation from being brought forward. However, there would be serious limitations on the power of Scottish Members. Here I agree with the right hon. Member for Down, South. These limitations would apply, for example, to Questions, to Adojurnment debates and to debates on the Consolidated Fund. In all these cases the yardstick for whether a debate is permissible is whether the subject falls within the responsibility of the Minister concerned. I think that Scottish Ministers and Secretaries of State for Scotland would probably be able to plead accurately that they could not answer on Scottish housing, education and other matters.

Mr. T. G. D. Galbraith: It is quite simple to ask a supplementary question merely by asking the Secretary of State what he intends to do at this time next week. There will be a way round that problem.

Mr. Raison: My hon. Friend is wise in the ways of the House. I agree that that kind of thing might happen, and would add to the irritation and friction which the Bill is calculated to produce. My Amendment No. 14 would add the following words at the end of Clause 1:
or the existing rights, responsibilities and duties of Members of Parliament representing any part of the United Kingdom'.
In other words, I want to establish that hon. Members should continue to be able to perform the functions which they have performed, and, I believe, performed well, over the centuries. It is worth looking carefully at what the Bill as drafted will mean for Scottish Members. I wonder whether Scottish Members and their constituents have yet understood the serious limitations that will be imposed on them.
The Bill seeks to prevent Scottish Members from dealing with devolved matters save, as I say, through legislation. On Second Reading, the Minister of State attempted to play down this

reduction in the responsibilities of Scottish Members and said that there would still be plenty for them to do, and perfectly fairly referred to economic powers, which I accept would still be relevant to Scottish Members.
However, I think that all Members, and particularly Scottish Members, should take on board the subjects which they will not be allowed to deal with—health, social welfare, education, housing, local government, land use, pollution, erosion, the countryside, transport and roads, marine works, agricultural land, fisheries, forestry, water, fire, tourism, monuments, registration, the courts, tribunals, public records, civil law matters and crime. That is an enormous chunk of government as we know it today, and an enormous chunk of the business of Members of this House and their ability to question Ministers on these important matters. I hope that hon. Members from Scotland and their constituents understand that these powers are being taken from them.

Mr. Dalyell: At least two-thirds of the list that the hon. Gentleman has read out are subjects which are directly dependent upon financial, economic and Treasury decisions. In our mongrel capacity—which is what it is, a mongrel capacity—how are we to decide what is relevant to economic policy and Treasury policy and what is not? Can it be imagined that the hon. Member for South Ayrshire (Mr. Sillars) will sit by meekly and allow all these things to be discussed without some mention of economic policy? This will apply not only to the hon. Member for South Ayrshire. I argue that every Member of a Scottish Assembly, whether Conservative, Labour, Liberal or with any other political tag, will want to discuss these matters. Of course, they will. It is endemic in the situation created by the Bill.

Mr. Raison: Once again the hon. Member for West Lothian has hit the nail right on the head. He is quite right.
It is instructive to look at the effect of these provisions on the activities of Members from Scotland. In doing so, I want to outline briefly the Adjournment debates and debates on the Consolidated Fund in the last Session which will no longer be allowed to take place if the Bill goes through in its present form. The


hon. Member for Aberdeenshire, East (Mr. Henderson) raised the question of the oil and gas infrastructure. The hon. Member for Central Ayrshire (Mr. Lambie) raised the question of Troon harbour. The hon. Member for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Small) raised the question of the general practitioner deputising service in Scotland. My hon. Friend the Member for Ayr (Mr. Younger) debated the work of the Royal Scottish Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children. My hon. Friend the Member for Ross and Cromarty (Mr. Gray) raised the subject of house improvement grants in rural areas of Scotland. The hon. Member for West Lothian raised the subject of the merger and closure of teacher training colleges in Scotland. My hon. Friend the Member for Dumfries (Mr. Monro) debated teachers' superannuation in Scotland. The hon. Member for Western Isles (Mr. Stewart) raised the subject of Scottish Transport Group fares to the Western Isles. The hon. Member for Glasgow, Springburn (Mr. Buchanan) raised the reconstruction of the Scottish Teachers' Salaries Committee. The hon. Member for Edinburgh, Central (Mr. Cook) raised the conduct of inquiries by the Special Branch. The hon. Member for Fife, Central (Mr. Hamilton) raised the further delay in completing the Thornton bypass in Fife.
I also have a list of Questions asked at the last Scottish Question Time, but in view of the truncation of our debate by the guillotine I shall not read it. However, it reinforces my argument that hon. Members will be deprived of doing their job as we know it.

Mr. Henderson: One reason why Scottish Members have to raise these matters on Adjournment debates at very late hours when there is little time for discussion is that there is no Scottish Parliament in which to debate them.

Mr. Raison: Scottish Members do not have to raise these matters at any later hour than do other hon. Members. It is interesting to note how often at Scottish Question Time there are not enough Questions to fill the time allowed. That happened at the last Scottish Question Time.

Mr. David Steel: If the hon. Member were a Scottish Member, he would

recognise that one of the difficulties from which we suffer, because of the anomalies in this place, is that we have to store up all these Questions which in respect of England would be put to different Ministers on different days. Our ration is an hour once a month. That is a further argument for devolution.

Mr. Raison: That is a total misconception. The right hon. Member must remember that English Members wishing to ask Questions on housing will put those Questions once every three weeks to the housing Ministers, and on transport they will be put every three or four weeks to the transport Ministers. There is no disadvantage in having to lump Questions together instead of raising them every three weeks.

Mr. Steel: The hon. Gentleman is not doing the arithmetic. My point is that our Questions on Scottish housing, education, transport and health have to be put to one Minister on the one opportunity we have.

Mr. Raison: There is no hardship in that. Either way, an hon. Member asks his Questions at regular intervals every three or four weeks. I do not want to be pettifogging about this, but I think that every Scottish Member has a considerably greater chance of getting a Question answered about his concerns than does an English Member. I do not begrudge that, because I think that there are special reasons for giving Scotland sympathetic treatment. The present system does that, and I think it right that it should.

Mr. Galbraith: I wish to confirm what my hon. Friend has said. Through the Table Office, I made inquiries about the chances of Scottish Members being able to ask Questions. They have twice as good a chance of getting Questions answered by the Scottish Office as English Members have of getting answers from the corresponding English Departments.

Mr. Raison: My hon. Friend is right. Finally, I ask those Scottish Members who support the Bill to consider what on earth will happen when they come to fight elections. I imagine that in Scotland, as in England, in an election campaign not merely great national matters are raised but one is asked about local issues. People ask "What will you do to get a hospital


here? What will you do to get a road here, or to improve the schools in this area?". Scottish candidates will have to say "I am sorry, but these powers have been taken away from us by our own decision and handed to an Assembly in Scotland." Are they happy in their hearts about what they will be voting for?

Mr. Dalyell: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Raison: am sure that I should quite agree with what the hon. Member for West Lothian is about to say, but because there is a guillotine I must press on.
The essential point is that the whole Bill is fraught with possibilities for friction. That is the profound objection that a growing number of people have to the Bill. We shall have plenty of opportunities to look at this later—or perhaps, in view of the guillotine, I should say limited opportunities—when we consider industrial and economic guidelines in relation to Clause 39 and pay policy in relation to Clause 40.
I wonder whether the House yet realises that if the Bill as at present drafted, were in force, there would be a dispensation that would relate to the present firemen's strike. It would be possible for firemen in Scotland to be given a 15 per cent. rise, but in England only 10 per cent. I do not want to talk about the level, but nobody can deny that if there were a situation in which public servants in one part of the country were not held to the Government's incomes policy while in other parts of the country they were, this could have most damaging consequences for the government of the whole United Kingdom.
Hon. Members know that the matters of payments to the Scottish Consolidated Fund and the block grant are already full of problems. The notion that one can divide up public transport and roads and have them run by completely separate administrations is nonsense. The Bill proposes that 8,000 civil servants should suddenly be told that they will work for the Scottish Assembly from then on. Is that not a breach of the conditions on which they were recruited?
Clause 1 is virtuous and admirable in intention, but it is totally fraudulent as a description of what happens in the Bill.

Mr. Henderson: It will be no surprise to the House to learn that my right hon. and hon. Friends will not be supporting the amendments in the names of the right hon. Member for Cambridgeshire (Mr. Pym) and his hon. Friends.
I should like to deal with one or two of the issues that were fairly and correctly raised by the hon. Member for Aylesbury (Mr. Raison). The hon. Gentleman talked about the proposed system being fraught with friction, but so is the present system, because there is frustration in Scotland about matters that the Scottish people feel should be attended to and that are not being attended to by the House.
The hon. Gentleman also asked about pay policy. Scottish teachers are already on different salary scales, but perhaps the hon. Member was not aware of that. There are separate negotiating arrangements in Scotland for teachers and that has not caused considerable strain. Perhaps wisely, the hon. Gentleman did not mention London weighting, which is, in effect, a separate form of negotiation for employees living in a particular part of the United Kingdom. We have a certain pluralism in these matters and the hon. Gentleman was wrong to suggest that there is now some wonderful uniformity that this bad Bill and some bad people will somehow disrupt.

Mr. James Sillars: Has the hon. Member considered using the pay policy to aid redistribution of civil servants? If the pay policy did not apply in Scotland, think how much easier it would be to persuade civil servants from London to go there, something they are now reluctant to do.

4.45 p.m.

Mr. Henderson: That is an interesting possibility of an inducement that it would be within the authority of the Scottish Assembly to consider.
In relation to the complaints that have been made about Clause 1, I must point out that neither I nor my hon. Friends have ever been entirely captivated by the argument about parliamentary sovereignty. That is a theoretical concept rather than a practical one. If the hon. Member for Aylesbury and others are to be believed, one would imagine that the House could suddenly legislate for horses to fly and that they would do so from


Monday or that Parliament could legislate that red-headed people should eat only lettuce and cabbage from Monday onwards, and that, because the House had authorised it and made legislation, it would happen. I see that the right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell) nods his head sagely.

Mr. Powell: There is no doubt that the House has the power to pass legislation of the second description, but whether it would be wise to do so is another matter.

Mr. Henderson: I value the right hon. Gentleman's comments on constitutional matters greatly. The right hon. Gentleman has suggested that it would be a question of whether something would be wise—and that is surely at the crux of the clause. The House may write into the Bill that it will not affect the unity of the United Kingdom or the supreme authority of Parliament in making laws for the United Kingdom or any part of it, but how that would be interpreted is a matter of wisdom.

Mr. Raison: The hon. Gentleman seeks to dismiss my argument by producing areductio ad absurdum. Will he face the specific example that I gave, which was that a measure to abolish corporal punishment in Scotland could perhaps be brought forward by a passionate Assemblyman who might wish for such a reform?

Mr. Henderson: What depresses me about the hon. Member for Aylesbury and others like him is that however technically logical their arguments may be, they are totally unrelated to reality. For hon. Members to imagine that the House will remain exactly the same, with all its prejudices and drawbacks and corny outdated procedures, and have devolution is living in a dream world. That cannot happen. It must change.
The House has been slow to change in any direction or on any issue over many years. The right hon. and learned Member for Huntingdonshire (Sir D. Renton) used a phrase that staggered me. He referred approvingly to "centuries of established practice" in the House. The fact that practices have been established for centuries does not carry any great weight in the new circumstances. Surely

it is time to look at things in a fresh light while the Bill is in front of us.

Sir David Renton: I was referring to what legislation means. It means making laws. That view has been taken over the centuries by the House, and I hope that it will continue. It does not mean making such propaganda as is contained in Clause 1.

Mr. Henderson: I shall not engage in an argument with the right hon. and learned Gentleman. I am trying to deal with the arguments and matters that have been put before us in support of the amendments. It is unrealistic to think that the House can remain exactly as it is as a result of the measure.
There is also a question of wisdom. The clause may be here to provide a power that might be used in some great emergency. However, let there be no doubt about it, when an Assembly and an Executive have been democratically elected in Scotland, it would be one of the most disastrous things that the House could do if it tried to interfere with the Assembly's workings and decisions. That would show that the House had learnt nothing from colonial disengagement over a long time. It is monstrous to suggest that the House should interfere in the affairs of the Assembly or the Scottish Executive.
How can it be suggested that this House should have an Adjournment debate on a matter arising out of the executive action of the officers of the Scottish Assembly? That would not be a proper matter for this House, and that would apply to other matters also.
Clearly, the Select Committee on Procedure of this House must look at this situation and will have to bring before us some revised procedures and guidelines on matters that can properly be discussed here and those which would properly be the concern of the Scottish Assembly and Executive.

Mr. Eldon Griffiths: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman can clear up a matter. There seems to be a difference between the point he has arrived at and the point where he began. Is he saying that the Government have put their name to a fraud in this clause? The hon. Gentleman is now indicating that the words in the clause are untrue.

Mr. Henderson: I am saying that the words in the clause are academic. One cannot democratically give the Scottish people the right to elect an Assembly, to appoint officers of Government as Secretaries, Prime Minister, or whatever they will be called—and, no matter what the Bill says, the Press in Scotland will refer to the Scottish Prime Minister—and then imagine that there can be interference from this House in matters that are properly within the concern of the Assembly and the legislation or executive action that it takes. This House will have to grow up a bit if it is to live with that situation. There must be good will and understanding by the House and a recognition of what the Assembly can do.

Mr. Dalyell: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Henderson: In a moment. I know that the hon. Member for West Lothian (Mr. Dalyell) likes to give a running commentary on our debates, and that often proves valuable.
I am sorry that my amendment was not selected for discussion. It would have gone a considerable way towards helping the House to look at this whole question. English Members have a justifiable complaint about the rôle that they will have here when we have established the Assembly and Executive in Scotland. I hope to come back to this matter at a later stage of the Bill, with proper advice, to make clear that it is not the wish of Scottish Members to interfere in English legislation. That is a necessary corollary to devolution.
I appreciate that there are wan faces on the Government Benches when it is realised that they may not be able to get a majority among English Members for some of their legislation. At present they use Scottish and Welsh Members as Lobby fodder to push through measures. The right approach is that, by convention or by a rule of the House, Scottish Members should be debarred from participating in matters that Mr. Speaker rules are exclusively an English concern. That is an element of fairness that my hon. Friends and I would support.

Mr. Dalyell: The hon. Gentleman is making a very significant speech. What is the difference between good will of the

House of Commons, as he defines it, and acquiescence by the House in the establishment of a separate Scottish State? From what he has said the two appear to be the same.

Mr. Henderson: I find the hon. Gentleman's allusions unclear for once. I am not sure what point he is trying to make.
Hon. Members would have to realise that there were matters which this House had decided should be devolved to a Scottish Assembly and Executive. They must be allowed to get on with those matters and to decide policies according to the majorities in the Assembly.
We have often heard the catchphrase "unity of the United Kingdom". I often wonder what the fundamental unity of the United Kingdom means to almost 200,000 Scots queuing at the labour exchanges, but that is another argument. Let us not confuse unity with uniformity. The purpose of this measure is to preserve a certain degree of unity while allowing diversity in the policies that each nation may implement.

Mr. Norman Buchan: I have been listening to the debate with some surprise. There is a lot of confusion and it is right that we should air it, but I resent it when hon. Members express their confusion in the form of dogmatic certainty. That is the worst of all worlds.
The clause does not merit the sort of sledgehammers that have been brought to bear upon it. It is no more than a pious hope. The argument is not whether the clause will effectively retain the unity of the United Kingdom but whether the Bill itself will help to achieve that unity or will help to crack it. The clause does not matter one iota in either of those arguments.
I have a good deal of sympathy with the right hon. and learned Member for Huntingdonshire (Sir D. Renton) who said that legislation is not the place for pious expressions of hope or for propaganda. Some places are appropriate for such expressions, and I am not sure that it is not a bad thing for the Bill to say that it is not to be used to crack up the United Kingdom, which is what Conservative Members are trying to say in their amendment.
Unfortunately, the amendment falls into precisely the same error. In place of "do not affect" it seeks to insert:
Nothing in these provisions shall be construed as impairing or in any way affecting".
Construed by whom? [HON. MEMBERS: "The courts."] Unity is not a question of interpretation by the courts or Parliament. It depends upon whether the people of the country want unity. It does not matter what is said here or in the courts. The clause and the amendment will not move us one step forward in achieving that aim.
If it is the will of the people expressed through the Assembly to crack up the United Kingdom, all sorts of things could prevent it—as Abraham Lincoln prevented it in the United States—but it would not be prevented by this Bill, by cutting out Clause 1 or by the amendment. We are dealing with the major matter of a possible break-up of the United Kingdom, but the clause does not deal with that. It is an expression of hope and nothing more.
The right hon. and learned Member for Huntingdonshire referred to discussions in the Kilbrandon Report, I was not very impressed by the report or the level of discussion on it and I was very unimpressed by the facile way in which the report made deductions based on pretty inadequate questions. It is not enough merely to ask people whether they are satisfied with the Government and so on. The people of Truro and Battersea would give the same reply to such questions as did the people of Edinburgh and Glasgow. There was little basic formulation before the Kilbrandon Commission arrived at its report on devolution. It was an extremely simple report by a group of people who, collectively, seemed extraordinarily simple-minded.

Sir David Renton: I disagreed with the Commission's conclusions in regard to Scotland, but it is only fair to point out that it took immense pains and sat for four and a half years hearing evidence in various parts of the United Kingdom, including two quite long visits to Scotland. Members received a vast amount of written and oral evidence in addition to what they gleaned on their visits.

5.0 p.m.

Mr. Buchan: The difficulty was that the Commission was established to consider the question of change in the constitution. What no Royal Commission will do after sitting for four years is to say "We recommend no change". That is the first point. The second point is that it did not examine in depth the nature of the response. That is like the comment of the hon. Member for Aberdeenshire, East (Mr. Henderson), who asked "Will the 200,000 people queueing up at the labour exchange be worried about the niceties of this legislation?" As the Commission was concerned about the constitutional framework, it deduced that there should be a constitutional response. An infinitely better response would have been to seek to establish a much juster and fairer form of economy, one that would give more power to the ordinary people. That would have been a better form of devolution to recommend. It would have been better to take power from the powerful sectors up on high and to pass it down to the ordinary people. However, that was not within the Commission's remit.
As a supporter of devolution for democratic reasons, I become anxious about the weight that is being placed on the possibilities arising from devolution. There is the nonsense of it being seen as a panacea on the one hand, while on the other hand it is seen as merely a preface to the cracking up of the United Kingdom. However, we shall not be engaged in that argument. We shall not find ourselves on the battlefield engaged in argument about the break-up of the United Kingdom if we deal only with the constitutional niceties in this place.
The discussion and the Bill will be decided by much vaster events. Those events will take place in Scotland and in the United Kingdom as a whole. If we spend our time in this place dealing with the confused nonsense that we have heard in the past hour or so on this clause, we shall be in deadly trouble. We must begin to understand the nature of the problem with which we are dealing.
The right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell), whom I exempt from all this, as I do my hon. Friend the Member for West Lothian (Mr. Dalyell), even


where I disagree with him, gave an example in talking about the Government of Ireland Act 1914. That was also an attempt to express the retention of unity. As the right hon. Gentleman said, that was exploded even before the Act was implemented. What we do not know is whether it would have been exploded if the Act had been implemented. The crucial question is whether that legislation would have achieved or maintained the unity of the United Kingdom and Ireland and whether a sufficient measure of Home Rule had been granted at that time. It would have been easier to grant devolution to Scotland then than it is now because the economy was not so structured, intermeshed and intermingled with Government. If it had been granted then, events would not have exploded.
Such events do not stem from the niceties of the clause. We are making the same error—namely, confusing unity and a unitary form of government. A unitary form of government, central decision-mankind and central legislation is one thing, but the unity of the people behind it is an entirely different matter.
We need not be afraid of the extension of democracy to the people, whether downwards in political terms, downwards in economic terms or horizontally to other areas, if the will exists to make it work.
I take up the remarks of the hon. Member for Aylesbury (Mr. Raison), who gave us an impressive list of the sort of questioning and the type of Adjournment debates that have been initiated by Scottish Members. The hon. Gentleman did not ask himself why that has happened. As a Scottish Member raises an Adjournment debate about a hospital in Stirling, Peterhead or Renfrewshire, so do English Members raise Adjournment debates about hospitals in Aylesbury or Birmingham. That is the nature of the beast. The reason that it has to happen here in respect of Scottish Members is that there is no other place in which it can happen. The same situation applies to English and Welsh Members. Therefore, it has to happen here.
The proposition is that there should be another place where such matters can be raised. Inevitably that involves the relationship between the Scottish Member

and his constituency and the relationship of the Assemblyman and the same constituency, or half of it. It is inevitable that the relationship will be different. There will not be the same requirement for these matters to be raised when the Assembly is established. However, we often raise matters relating to local government despite the presence of local government representation. There is nothing wrong with that. Scottish Members will find the means of raising Scottish matters and I see nothing to stop that happening. I believe that it will create problems, but there is nothing to stop it. Part of the argument depends upon a simple proposition—namely, "What will Scottish Members do?". That is very different from the West Lothian question, which is a major crunch issue.
I find the question "What will Scottish Members do?" relatively unimportant. There will be many major issuses with which they have to deal. The trouble is not the argument about unity, it is the obsession with unitary government and the obsession that the so-called sovereignty of this place is the be-all and end-all, the pinnacle of any possible democracy. That is the absorption of some Members who, like myself, have been here too long, to echo Cromwell's sentiments, for all the good that they have done. They are so absorbed with their own rule in this place that they cannot envisage extending the same rule to other people in another place.

Mr. Eldon Griffiths: The hon. Gentleman made an interesting remark when he suggested that notwithstanding what the Bill, which would be an Act, said, Scottish Members would be able to raise matters that are clearly barred within the Bill, that it would be the duty of a Minister to reply on matters for which he had no accountability, and that the Chair would admit them. Will the hon. Gentleman explain precisely how he thinks the Chair would admit them or a Minister could reply if matters are raised by Scottish Members that are specifically outside the responsibility of this House?

Mr. Buchan: Curiously enough, I did not say that. I was dealing with the number of Scottish matters raised by Scottish Members. It is said that they are so concerned with Scottish matters


that they would have little to do with their time if they came to the House once the Assembly had been set up. The argument has been that such matters would be raised in another place.

Mr. Raison: Surely the real point—

Mr. Buchan: With respect, let me decide the real point.

Mr. Raison: The hon. Gentleman has said, and I agree with him, that Scottish Members would do their best to raise Scottish matters in this House. It would be clearly outside the power of a Minister to reply. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will address himself to the argument raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Mr. Griffiths), who has issued a dire warning of the consequences for Scottish Members if they raise such matters in this place. It has been said that if Scottish Members do so there will be great wrath and anger in Scotland. That illustrates once again that this is a scheme that will cause divisions, fired by the SNP.

Mr. Buchan: If the hon. Gentleman and others had read me more diligently on Sunday, they would appreciate that I have been warning on this point for a long time. I referred to the difficulties that the Bill will cause in relation to the Assembly and this place. Clearly we shall never remove conflict from political affairs. If I raise a matter affecting the Strathclyde Region, I have no doubt that a Strathclyde councillor will say "Why is he butting his nose in?". However, hon. Members tend to do that. Perhaps we should not do so, but the fact is that we do it. It will happen here.
I do not think that that is the sort of rage that the hon. Member for Aberdeenshire, East would like to arouse in the Assembly. The issue that he would like to raise goes much deeper than that. We must remember that with which he is concerned. That is why I share the surprise of the hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds, who said that the speeches of the hon. Member for Aberdeenshire, East start in one way and end in another. I am vaguely surprised that they endorsed Clause 1, which is what he seemed to suggest at the beginning. If there is a group in this place who do not want to preserve the United Kingdom, it is the Scottish

National Party. That also applies to the Scottish Labour Party.
Is it possible to achieve unity rather than great anxiety over the cracking of a unitary structure of government? I do not know, although I hope that it is possible. I hope that we shall find the means whereby we can run side by side the Assembly and the United Kingdom Government without continually looking over our shoulders when the first crunch issue appears to see whether a crack is appearing.
I believe that it is likely that the Bill will lead to the break-up of the United Kingdom. I am not so convinced that not having the Bill will prevent its break-up. We are foolish if we do not appreciate that there is a balance of danger. My judgment, for what it is worth, is that it is more dangerous to do without the Bill.
Believing in democracy, I also am in favour of extending democracy. But I am under no illusions as to the kind of dangerous course on which we are embarked, which is why I want to get rid of the illusions of hon. Members opposite about my right hon. Friends on the Front Bench believing that it can be dealt with on the lines of this Bill. I have tried to come forward with a partial suggestion in which the matter could be dealt with and in which a truce apparently could be worked out in order to get a balance of relationships between the two legislatures.
At least we should settle the separatist dispute for the time being—though perhaps not for ever—in that the Assembly should be given the chance to work—to see whether it will work. But by dealing with the separatist issue, inevitably the question has to be posed to the Scottish people. The arguments about separation and independence have to be fought out and argued properly in Scotland.
The hon. Member for Aberdeenshire, East complains about 200,000 people being out of work, and so do I. I see no reason why that number should not increase considerably if we break up the United Kingdom. He thinks that the number will diminish. That is the level upon which the argument has to be engaged. I believe that he is speaking nonsense. In my constituency Babcock and Wilcox, Chrysler and shipbuilding would be manifestly in danger if Scotland were given


complete economic power but no influence on the United Kingdom economy. The effect would be in the opposite direction. But the important thing is that we have to argue it out. We are not doing that while we are concentrating on these minor constitutional points. Therefore, the question has to be posed and the Government must see the error of their ways.
Given a single question on the referendum, that argument will not be engaged. The matter will never be settled. We are likely then to get an endorsement for devolution without going into a situation in which crack-up is not only possible but likely. We are also giving the SNP the chance of fighting a major campaign which they cannot lose because they can play both ends against the middle, and because we who understand the problems will not feel great zest for engaging in that aspect. That major campaign will be taken by them, and by many people, as being the first steps towards independence.
The Government must stop short and look at the necessity of a second question to deal with the issue of independence, not just because the referendum can settle the issue for all time, or at least for a long time, but so that—

Mr. Galbraith: Will the hon. Gentleman give way? We are in Committee.

Mr. Buchan: It is wrong of the hon. Member to interrupt me, not only in mid-sentence, but in mid-clause. The real task before us is to ensure that this argument is properly engaged. I now give way to the hon. Member.

Mr. Galbraith: We forget that we are in Committee where it is normal to interrupt hon. Members. Does the hon. Member for Renfrewshire, West (Mr. Buchan) think that if a second question about independence were put in the referendum, and it were rejected by the Scottish people, that would make any difference once the Assembly was established?

Mr. Buchan: Obviously I do or I would never have suggested it. This has been the whole basis of my argument. I want to give the Assembly a chance of being established with the emphasis on that particular question diminished for the time being. That is the basis of my argument. If the hon. Member under

stands that, he should not interrupt me even in Committee.
Therefore we should have at least managed, in spite of the wrong-headed emphasis on this matter, to raise the real issue. That is not unitary government or a statement about unity, but the question of how we can best achieve unity. We cannot do that without the basic argument being engaged—that is, without asking the simple, straightforward question "Do you want Scotland to become an independent State?" without qualification. In such a case the SNP can defend its end and I can defend mine. That might give the chance of achieving unity. The dangers are enormous, and I would find my loyalty and continuing support for the Bill under considerable strain if that question could not be put and the battle engaged.

5.15 p.m.

Mr. David Steel: The hon. Member for Renfrewshire, West (Mr. Buchan) has introduced a note of calm realism and pragmatism into this otherwise extremely vague debate. I hope that he will not take it as being offensive if I say that I wish that he had kept his referendum remarks for the time when we shall deal with the referendum in the Bill.
I want to concentrate on Clause 1. I regard it as nothing but pious window-dressing—if there can be such a thing. Perhaps it would be a more apt description to call it window-dressing with a stained glass window. The amendment is seeking to change the dummies in the window, but the substance of the clause is not altered and nor is its material effect—[Interruption.] The hon. Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Taylor) seems to be saying that we should take the dummies out of the window, and there may be a case for that. I can see no case for the amendment and I am glad that as the debate has progressed the hon. Member for Cathcart has come to recognise that it is hardly worth having.
I believe that sovereignty rests with the people, not with this House. I agree with the hon. Members for Aberdeenshire, East (Mr. Henderson) and Renfrewshire, West. At the end of the day the question of how far this Assembly will go will be decided by the people in Scotland, not just in the referendum but generally as the politics of the Assembly


and the politics of this House go on year by year and side by side. Given the necessary degree of good will and co-operation between the two bodies there is no earthly reason why this solution should not last. But no one can guarantee that it will last. Not even the most enthusiastic supporter of the Bill can guarantee that.
If we are looking for lessons from Ireland I come to the opposite conclusion to the hon. Member for Cambridgeshire (Mr. Pym). We lost Ireland because year after year, decade after decade, we refused to accept the demand of the people of Ireland for a degree of government over their own affairs. My distinguished predecessor, Mr. Gladstone—

Mr. Nigel Lawson: Rubbish.

Mr. Steel: The hon. Member for Blaby (Mr. Lawson) might at least allow me to begin my quotation before saying "Rubbish". He does not know what I am going to quote.

Mr. Lawson: I was referring to the right hon. Member's earlier remark.

Mr. Steel: Mr. Gladstone's advocacy of Home Rule all round was rejected by this House. Therefore, we cannot argue backwards in history, and we cannot say that we would have kept Ireland within the United Kingdom if we had introduced devolutionary legislation. We can argue, however, that Ireland left the United Kingdom precisely because we refused such a measure. Therefore, the balance of argument whether Scotland will be separated from the United Kingdom if we follow the Irish example rests certainly on the side of those who want the Bill to become law and against those who say that the right approach is to do nothing. When one boils it down, that is what the Opposition want to do, and that cannot be denied.
I listened to the hon. Member for Aylesbury (Mr. Raison) going through Scottish Questions. I remember in the first year I came to this House being struck by the disadvantage at which a Scottish Member was placed under our anomalous position here. I was moved to write an excellent pamphlet which I commend to the hon. Member for Ayles

bury and others. It is in the Library and it was written 10 years ago. It pointed out that Scottish Members were rationed to two Questions a day—the number is now one Question a day. It added up all the Questions that an English Member—it might be the hon. Member for Blaby—would want to ask the Secretary of State for the Environment on Monday about housing, the Secretary of State for Transport on Tuesday about some transport matter, the Minister of Agriculture on Wednesday—

Mr. Raison: The English Member could ask the Question only once every three weeks.

Mr. Steel: Yes, once every three weeks on each topic.

Mr. Raison: Scots can ask some Questions about agriculture.

Mr. Steel: The hon. Member does not even know his facts. In Scotland agriculture is the responsibility of the Secretary of State for Scotland. The hon. Member should read my pamphlet.

Mr. Raison: It is 10 years out of date.

Mr. Steel: It is not. It is quite up-to-date, but I would consider producing a new edition to satisfy public demand. That is more important now because the number of Questions has been reduced from two to one.

Mr. Buchan: I never understood why we could not have had a Scottish Grand Committee meeting for a Question session. The Secretary of State could then have answered more questions.

Mr. Steel: With a slight variation, that was one of the suggestions that I made, but that was in the context of no devolution. One of the reasons why an Assembly makes sense is that many Questions which Scottish Members are frustrated from asking can be transferred to the elected representatives in the Assembly.

Mr. Teddy Taylor: I accept that the position of Scottish Members is different from that of English Members at Question Time but the difference is that there are 71 Scots whereas if one looks at housing and education 500 Englishmen have interests.

Mr. Steel: I accept that. As the Secretary of State more or less admitted in his


Second Reading speech, there is no doubt that the Scottish Office is less answerable in detail to the House than other Departments because of its multi-departmental responsibility.
The disadvantage does not rest on Questions alone. Has anyone stopped to analyse the workings of the Scottish Grand Committee? The people in Scotland would be astonished if they knew how it worked. If it had met in Edinburgh it would have been exposed. I have described it as being neither Scottish, grand nor a committee. It is the nearest thing that we have to a detention cell. English Members get conscripted on to it and when they get there they do their correspondence.
English Members are now entitled to vote in the Committee. What a row that caused. A former hon. Member for Ipswich once spoke in that Committee. This was unheard of. He said that by intervening as an English Member he ran the risk of never again being appointed to the Committee.
Hon. Members must be honest and recognise that the way in which we govern Scotland is riddled with anomalies. The Opposition say, first, that they are in favour of devolution in principle; second, that they want devolution without anomalies; third, that the only way that they can achieve that is to have federalism; fourth, that they are against federalism; and therefore, fifth, that we should do nothing. That is not a tenable position. We should proceed quickly with Clause 1, which means nothing, and get on with the Bill.

Mr. David Price: The speeches that we have heard so far drive one to the inescapable conclusion that we should omit the clause. There is much argument about what "unity" means and about pious hopes. The right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell) said that the clause was propaganda. It does not add to the Bill.
The second phrase in the clause states that the changes do not affect
the supreme authority of Parliament to make laws for the United Kingdom or any part of it.
That would be palpably untrue if the Bill were passed because Clause 18(2) states:

A Scottish Assembly Act may amend or repeal a provision made by or under an Act of Parliament.
In the practical world perhaps the hon. Member for Aberdeenshire, East (Mr. Henderson) is correct. I say that the statement that the supreme authority of Parliament to make laws for the United Kingdom or any part of it will not be affected is not true. It is bound to be affected in the real world.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Aylesbury (Mr. Raison) said, there is a list of devolved subject matters in Schedule 10. I have sympathy with the views of the hon. Member for Aberdeenshire, East on this point. It is no good the Leader of the Liberal Party referring to his distinguished predecessor, Mr. Gladstone. As I said during the Second Reading, Mr. Gladstone grasped most of the fundamental issues—issues which emerged in our debates on the Scotland and Wales Bill last year and which will emerge again during the passage of this Bill.
None of the questions asked during Second Reading were answered, probably because the Minister did not have sufficient time. I raised the problems of the "Eastleigh question", which concerns taxing powers. I quoted Frank Layfield, and it is relevant to the remarks of the Leader of the Liberal Party. On the subject of local government finance Lay-field and his colleagues said:
Whoever is responsible for spending money should also be responsible for raising it, so that the amount of expenditure is subject to democratic control.
Legislative powers are to be passed to a Scottish Assembly. The Scottish Executive will have lots of things to do but the power to control money will not be passed to it. I can think of nothing that is more designed to produce "agro" between Edinburgh and Whitehall than that. I am sure that the Members of the SNP will agree with me.
Any form of devolution must be built round the transfer of taxating powers from this House. Unless that is done, one is bound to create a nonsense. The Redcliffe-Maud Commission was set up by the right hon. Member for Huyton (Sir H. Wilson) in 1966 and it was given terms of reference to look at functions and geography but not at voting supply and taxation.
The Bill is technically misconceived from the beginning because it does not deal with voting supply and taxing powers. It is therefore bound to disturb the unity of the people of the United Kingdom. I accept the distinction between unitarianism and unity.
We have several alternatives. We either leave things as they are, have a federal arrangement, have something like Mr. Gladstone's Home Rule Bill or we have complete separation, which some members of the SNP desire. These are the only alternatives open to us. But the Bill deals with none of those possibilities.
Nothing in the Bill illustrates more clearly the basic nonsense behind the proposals than Clause 1. It is interesting to reflect how Mr. Gladstone dealt with the "West Lothian question". He dealt with it well in 1886 during his First Reading speech on the Government of Ireland Bill. He said;
if Ireland is to have a domestic Legislature, Irish Peers and Irish Representatives cannot come here to control English and Scotch affairs.… There cannot be a domestic Legislature in Ireland, dealing with Irish affairs, and Irish Peers and Irish Representatives sitting in Parliament at Westminster to take part in English and Scotch affairs,
There is no way round that argument. There is only Home Rule or a federal solution. I hope that the Government will reflect on this. The questions that I have put, the questions that have been put by the hon. Member for West Lothian (Mr. Dalyell) and the implications of the issues raised by the hon. Member for Aberdeenshire, East add up to the fact that this Bill is a nonsense. I hope that the Committee will reject it.

5.30 p.m.

Mr. Dalyell: Before the hon. Member sits down, may I refer him to the personal difficulty of the right hon. Member for Roxburgh, Selkirk and Peebles (Mr. Steel)? The truth of the matter is that the right hon. Gentleman can affect matters in the neighbouring constituency of his Chief Whip in Berwick-upon-Tweed which he cannot affect in his own constituency. How on earth can this anomaly be supported? Mr. Gladstone would not have thought much about it.

Mr. Price: I must agree with the hon. Member, as I am sure he agrees with me that it is absolute nonsense to attempt to

delegate powers to legislate without delegating taxing powers. We already see the anomaly which exists in the reorganised local government system which cannot deal with local taxation. This is the cause of a great deal of discord between local authorities and Government. We have that lesson before us and yet we are bringing in this new Scottish Executive above the reorganised local government structure in Scotland. Such a move is designed to produce "aggro" between Edinburgh and London.

Mr. Sillars: Whatever the Bill and the debates on it do for the government of Scotland, they have certainly added to the Scottish political vocabulary. Already we are well aware of the "West Lothian" question, and earlier this afternoon we had the West Renfrewshire doctrine of inevitability about Scottish independence. The Leader of the Liberal Party has added a new term—"enthusiastic supporters for this Bill." I am sure that if there was not a guillotine operating one such supporter might appear.
Before dealing with the amendment I wish to comment on an important point made by the hon. Member for Aylesbury (Mr. Raison) who spoke about the problem of powers in relation to domestic Scottish affairs being removed from Members of this Parliament. The important point is that no power is being removed from the Scottish people. Without wishing to be accused by the Minister of State of being too enthusiastic for this measure, I must say, in all fairness, that the Bill has certainly extended Scottish accountability in Scotland by the Scottish people over important domestic matters such as transport and the social services.
I can give examples of how control by the people and the accountability of Assemblymen to the people would have radically improved the government of Scotland. There is no way in which the Strathclyde Region would have been imposed upon the people of Scotland had there been a Scottish Assembly dealing with important issues. What happened in the House of Commons on the final vote concerning Strathclyde was that the majority of Members representing Scottish constituencies voted against the construction of Strathclyde while a whole range of English Tories came in on a three-line Whip—they did not know a


blind thing about Strathclyde, Argyll or any other part of Scotland—and voted down majority opinion in Scotland.
As a result of that action we have been landed with a measure which will probably figure prominently in the manifesto of every party fighting the Assembly elections. There will be the unanimous promise that whatever else they will do, they will certainly reform the botched-up structure of local government inherited from this Parliament.
The situation is the same with land use. There have been two Select Committees on Scottish affairs in recent years. One was established just before the 1970 election and dealt with regional policy in Scotland. I served on the second such Committee, along with John Brewis, who was at that time the Conservative Member for Galloway. He was the chairman of the Committee. One of the vice-chairmen was George Lawson, who used to be the Labour Member for Motherwell. My hon. Friend the Minister of State also served on the Committee. We did a lot of work on land use in Scotland.
I am told that the report of the Select Committee sold more copies in Scotland than most other Government publications. Yet the report has never been debated and probably has no chance of being debated. This is despite the fact that, within the forum of domestic Scottish politics, land use, who owns which land, is a gut issue in a way that it can never be south of the border, for a variety of historical reasons. There is an improvement in the government of Scotland inherent in this Bill, however unenthusiastic I may be about some aspects of it.

Mr. Teddy Taylor: On this question of land use and the Select Committee's valuable report, would the hon. Member not accept that even within a Scottish Assembly there would be business managers and Whips? The fact is that last year the Scottish Grand Committee met on only half the number of days it could have met. We could have discussed the land use report and many others if the Government or the usual channels had taken the view that there should be discussions. Would the hon. Gentleman not accept that it is not a question of shortage of time but of the way that the time is used?

Mr. Sillars: No. It is a question of the difference between discussion and decision. The most that the Scottish Grand Committee can do is engage in endless discussion. A Scottish Assembly will be able to promote an examination of problems, discuss them and decide upon them. That is the point that the hon. Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Taylor) has not grasped—at least this side of the election. There is a lot of hope for him before election day. We have experience of that.
I come now to Amendment No. 8, which proposes in line 9, to leave out from "Kingdom" to the end of line 11. The purpose of the amendment is to remove the temptation which I believe the theoretical powers of supreme legislation will put in the hands of those who occupy these Benches a number of years after some of us have gone. I do not think that it would be practical or wise to exercise the theoretical sovereignty of the House of Commons over a Scottish Assembly once that Assembly has been established.
The amendment was also tabled to draw attention to what I regard as a basic defect in the Bill, namely that it does not allow for an organic development of the Assembly's relationship with this Parliament. I do not believe that this Bill is in any way a final settlement or solution of what has come to be called in Scotland "the Scottish question."

Mr. Henderson: What about the Common Market?

Mr. Sillars: I am not dealing with the Common Market at present. A lot of what we say tonight could be repeated on Thursday and thereafter in Committee. It will be interesting to see how many people who are complaining about the division of powers between Edinburgh and Westminister will explain to us that there is no problem in connection with the division of powers between West-minister and Strasbourg. The point is that no final settlement is involved in this Bill.
The nature of the Bill will compel the Assembly to chance its luck on occasion, to stretch its power as far as it possibly can. My hon. Friend the Member for Renfrewshire, West (Mr. Buchan) talked about the need for a sufficient measure of Home Rule in the days when the Irish


question dominated the House of Commons. The same thing applies in relation to Scotland. What is lacking is a sufficient measure. The firms my hon. Friend mentioned in his own constituency—Babcock and Wilcox, Chrysler and others—will automatically, as a first instinct at a time of trouble, turn towards Carlton Hill in Edinburgh. They will be most displeased as will Members of the Assembly, when it is realised that no powers reside there which can respond to the problems confronting them.

Mr. Buchan: The problem is that no power would reside there, even if there were an independent Scotland. Babcock and Wilcox is almost entirely dependent upon what would then be a separate English nationalised industry. There could be an independent Parliament, but those who went to it for economic help might find that it did not operate the levers of economic power.

Mr. Sillars: I am tempted to come on to the Common Market issue with my hon. Friend, but we shall come to it when we reach the question of the referendum and the definition of the term "independence". I am sure that my hon. Friend is aware that, when we talk of the Common Market, we are talking about a customs union and obligations and responsibilities which tie Scottish industry, commerce and finance within that organisation as much as within any other. But it is absurd to say that an independent Government within the Common Market would be unable to respond to Scottish workers going to their own independent Parliament, as it would be financed by very considerable resources.

Mr. Buchan: My hon. Friend opposed our entry into the Common Market.

Mr. Sillars: Like my hon. Friend, I opposed it for very sound reasons. We were both convinced that it was better not to go in. However, the people said that we should go in. In May 1972, the right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell) and I—I am sure that I carry him with me on this point—spoke on an amendment dealing with Scotland when the European Communities Bill was before the House. I forecast that it would be an inevitable consequence of the United Kingdom's membership of the

Common Market that Scotland would seek independence within that organisation. The Assembly is bound to stretch itself and this Parliament is bound to be involved in one response or another, either positive or negative.
If I were a member of the Assembly, I would put down a motion that the Assembly should appoint an economic commission to examine the Scottish economy in relation to the Scottish Assembly, the divisions or otherwise of economic power, and the responsibility and ability to do something inside Scotland. We all know what such a commission's findings would be. There are bound to be problems about future oil policy, for example, because there is divergence of opinion between absolute Scottish needs and absolute United Kingdom needs.
Then there is the question of the Scottish Development Agency, whose guidelines are to be set in Westminster, where the principles of harmonisation and uniformity are supreme. Once the Assembly is established, that agency, with all its potential for development and influence in the Scottish economy, will be tempted to try experimentation, to see whether economic devolution could work. But it will come up against the hard fact that such work is not on because of the strangulation by the guidelines.

Mr. Dalyell: It is the settled policy of the Labour Party in Scotland that the work of the Scottish Development Agency and economic devolution will not take place in the way suggested.

Mr. Sillars: My hon. Friend the Member for West Lothian (Mr. Dalyell) does occasionally tell us what is official Labour Party policy. But even that is bound to change. I do not care who gets elected to the Assembly; the fact is that, once the Assembly is given the Scottish Development Agency, and once the Assembly faces extreme structural problems in the Scottish economy in the next five to seven years, it is bound to seek freedom from the guidelines, and there will be strains and tensions.
It is true that, in theory, at the end of the day, this Parliament can say "Away with the Assembly; it is giving us too much trouble." But that is like the use of the H-bomb between the United States and the Soviet Union.


Once the ultimate deterrent is used, there is nothing left, and in this case we shall have reached the point of separation and independence one way or another.
5.45 p.m.
Amendment No. 8 simply reflects the reality of the problems which will lie perhaps more in this House than in the Assembly, because it is the Assembly that will stretch and this House that will be required to respond. I see the Assembly as being of necessity a mechanism of adjustment towards a Scottish Parliament with substantial powers, and in doing so I recognise, as does my hon. Friend the Member for Renfrewshire, West, the limitations within that capitalist organisation called the Common Market. But it will be a Scottish Parliament with a great deal more power than the Scottish people are able to exercise at present.
The right hon. Member for Cambridgeshire (Mr. Pym) described Clause 1 as fraudulent because, he said, it used the words
They do not affect the unity of the United Kingdom".
I would not accuse the Minister of State of being fraudulent. I simply think that the wish is father to the thought. But that simple criticism can certainly be applied to the right hon. Member for Cambridgeshire. One need only listen to the right hon. Gentleman making his analysis of the points of friction built into the system we are creating, and of the consequences bound to arise, and to speeches from Conservative Back Benchers, to realise that they are as fraudulent, or at least as guilty of the wish being father to the thought, as the Government themselves.
It is my view that the best thing for the House to do is to accept Amendment No. 8 and, as we proceed through the rest of the Bill, to build in economic power for the Assembly. It would mean substantial power. It would give the devolution settlement the kind of chance pleaded for by my hon. Friend the Member for Renfrewshire, West. It would be easier to be an Assemblyman operating in an Assembly with power through which one could respond to the problems of the Scottish economy than to serve in an Assembly whose lack of power led to frustration in day-to-day life because it was separated from economic management.

Mr. Buchan: But how does my hon. Friend square this with his own position, which is not devolution of economic power but independence within the Common Market?

Mr. Sillars: The two can be squared. I believe that independence within the Common Market would be the best solution for the Scottish people. It may well be that they will settle for something less than that, but I think my hon. Friend and I are in agreement that they will not. I think that that is the important point.
I have always said that there is a reasonable chance of the Scottish people accepting a devolution settlement given that they have substantial economic powers. I have said that irrespective of my own point of view. If, therefore, I became a Member of an Assembly with economic powers, I would try to make a constructive contribution to its work, always reserving the right to argue another viewpoint in the future. My hon. Friend would no doubt take the same attitude. There is no contradiction there.
Amendment No. 8 would pave the way to substantial economic power for the Assembly. Unless the Assembly does get such power, it might even be better to add, after the words
They do not affect the unity of the United Kingdom"—
yet".

Mr. Graham Page: The hon. Member for South Ayrshire (Mr. Sillars) returned in one or two sentences in his speech to Clause 1 and the amendments. We are in Committee after all, discussing amendments to Clause 1, although that has not been evident so far. Clause 1 in my view is the most hypocritical and at the same time most ridiculous piece of declaratory legislation. It is a legislative lie. It does not fit with the rest of the Bill in truth. But we have it, and here we are in Committee debating it and the amendments to it, and I do not intend to enter on a "clause stand part" speech or a Second Reading speech, because we ought to be making an effort to correct at this stage the clause that is before us. That is what some of the amendments endeavour to do.
Amendment No. 2, moved by my right hon. Friend the Member for Cambridgeshire (Mr. Pym), has been called a "fudging" amendment. It is nothing of the


sort. It endeavours to make clear the intention of Clause 1 perhaps, but I believe that it does not go far enough. It we are to have Clause 1, if we are to have this vague and, as someone called it, pious hope—"impious" would be the better description—which is an invitation to legislation by its very vagueness, let us at least try to tidy it up and spell out exactly what is intended by the loose wording of the clause.
My right hon. and hon. Friends and I have endeavoured to do that in Amendments Nos. 3, 10 and 11. We seek to remove the whole of the second sentence of Clause 1, which goes far beyond the truth of the Bill. When we compare the second sentence of Clause 1 with the rest of the Bill, we find that it is just not true. I will read that second sentence as it would be if these amendments were accepted. With Amendment No. 3 it would read:
Nothing in this Act shall be construed so as to affect adversely or shall detract from, harm or weaken the unity of the United Kingdom
and so on, and that would go a lot further than merely saying that it shall not affect the unity of the United Kingdom or the supremacy of Parliament.
I do not think it is enough simply to say that the Bill shall not "affect the unity", and so on. It may well be that, as we proceed through the Bill, we shall find that we shall wish to strengthen the unity of the United Kingdom by some provisions. We may wish to strengthen the supremacy of this Parliament and to make it quite clear. I would not wish to exclude that type of amendment as we go through the Bill.
If Amendment No. 10 were accepted, the second sentence of Clause 1 would go on to say, at the end,
nor shall they alter the prerogatives, rights, duties, privileges and conventions of the Crown as the constitutional monarchy of the United Kingdom".
That may be a bit lavish in words but nowhere else do I find any confirmation of the constitutional monarchy of the United Kingdom and that it shall not be affected by any of the clauses in the Bill. I think it ought to be well stated in Clause 1 if we are to have a declaratory statement of what is intended by the Bill.
Then by Amendment No. 11 I would seek to add to that at the end the words
and no provision, power or privilege granted in any section of the Act may be so used in any way which might in any manner affect the unity of the United Kingdom".
I think it is necessary to spell that out because of certain specific provisions in the Bill giving the Scottish Assembly—or, indeed, Scottish Ministers, or Ministers in the Government at Westminster—the power to alter the law relating to the United Kingdom if that alteration is consequential upon some Act passed by the Scottish Assembly.
It may be said that that is quite a small matter, but surely, if the Scottish Assembly passes a Bill which becomes a Scottish Assembly Act and it is then thought wise to make that apply to the rest of the United Kingdom for the sake of uniformity, that is consequential on the Scottish Assembly and may substantially alter the laws of the United Kingdom.
I would hope that it could be spelled out in Clause 1 that no such provision should be used so that it affects the unity of the United Kingdom or the supremacy of Parliament in Westminster. There is no doubt that by Clauses 18 and 19, combined with the provisions of Schedule 2, there is the power in the Scottish Assembly to alter the laws of the United Kingdom, and with the co-operation of Ministers, the laws of the United Kingdom could be altered under Clause 35 and Clause 80(3).
It is not only that the laws could be altered. The Bill provides for the method to enable those laws to be altered. In Clause 35 there is an entirely new procedure of law making, and if that is not an alteration in the government of the United Kingdom I do not know what is. If we are to have a declaratory clause it should be spelled out in Clause I that those powers shall not be used to affect the unity of the United Kingdom.
Returning to the first of the three amendments, that the provisions of the Bill shall not adversely affect the unity of the United Kingdom or the supremacy of Parliament, it is not sufficient merely to say that they shall not affect. It needs to be spelled out so that we say that they shall not affect the laws of the United Kingdom or the government of the United Kingdom adversely, and shall not


weaken or harm or detract from the unity of the United Kingdom.
I do not see how the Government could reasonably object to that sort of statement. After all, it is only saying what we have understood that the Government intended to say in Clause 1. But it would prevent the use of some of the powers in the remainder of the Bill for what I would consider to be an entirely wrong purpose.
As I am making a rather legalistic point here and there, I am glad to see that the Law Officer for Scotland is in his seat in the House. I am sorry that he was not with us earlier in the debate. It is not that he was not available, because he was sitting below the Bar of the House. I am sure that he will agree with the point which I have made—that if we are to have a declaratory clause, the first and major matter about which we have to make certain is that it does not confuse the issue. If it is meant to declare what the Government intend, let it declare it and spell it out properly. Never mind that there will be a few more lines of print in the Bill. Let it be certain, by this clause, that other provisions in the Act are not applied in such a way as to damage the unity of the United Kingdom or to weaken the supremacy of Parliament.

Mr. Iain Sproat: I intended to begin by making two comments on what the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Liberal Party said but, to my astonishment, having made a speech in which he said how shocking it was that we did not have more time to discuss Scottish matters, he then departed from the Chamber just as we were discussing Scottish matters. But that is the usual way in which the Liberals appear to behave. None the less, two of the points that the right hon. Gentleman made require answer, if not to him then certainly to the House and to the country beyond it.
The right hon. Gentleman criticised us for spending any time at all on this block if amendments. But now that we have a guillotine—which we all know means that the Bill will go through, if the Government so wish it, more or less without amendment—we are not, alas, speaking primarily to this House of Commons any more. We are speaking, albeit by several removes, to the people of Scotland out

side, who, God help them, have to believe what they read in the newspapers' accounts of this debate.
To be fair to the media, it was their reporting of our previous debates which caused the affection for devolution to decline so much in Scotland over the last few months. Indeed, I believe that when the referendum comes along, it will have caused that affection to decline so far the measure will be thrown out.
I think, therefore, that we have to seize every opportunity that we can to air issues, knowing that they will have no impact whatsoever on the right hon. Gentleman and the Minister of State but that they may have some impact in the rather more thoughtful heads of people in Scotland.
6.0 p.m.
There is a myth which ought to be destroyed at the start of the Committee stage, and I will state what it is. The right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Liberal Party said, in effect—I am sorry that he is not here to correct me if I have him wrong—that those who are against devolution are in favour of thestatus quo. We often hear the stupid catch phrase that thestatus quo is no longer an option. Those of us who are against the Bill, and who are against any similar Bill, are not talking about things remaining exactly the same. I have no doubt whatsoever that the government of this country is in great need of change, change administrative, change legislative and change constitutional. All these changes must be such that they can be applied equally to all parts of the United Kingdom. That is the essential element and principle upon which I hope all hon. Members who spout about thestatus quo no longer being an option will now agree. Let us have changes but in a framework that can be applied equally to all parts of the United Kingdom.
There are two levels on which we can talk about the unity of the United Kingdom and the Government's declaratory statement. It sometimes suits hon. Members to hop from one level to the other. There is the semantic level and there is the level of political reality.
The semantic level is that there is nothing in the Bill which says that we want to break up the United Kingdom and, therefore, the Bill does nothing which will break up the United Kingdom. At


that shallow, miserable level that is true, but we are not just talking about a semantic level; we are talking about the level of political reality.
The Government themselves tacitly admit this because their reason for bringing in the Bill is to maintain the unity of the United Kingdom. Indeed, talk of the Bill not affecting the unity of the United Kingdom is rubbish, because the Government would not bring it in if they did not believe that it would be affecting the unity of the United Kingdom. The Government's theory is that the effect is that it will strengthen the unity of the United Kingdom, but we Conservatives believe that it will be conducive to the destruction of the United Kingdom.
That same sort of semantic juggling with words is evidenced in the phrases of many hon. Members about bringing government closer to the people. Those hon. Members use the argument in a physical sense of taking government to Edinburgh rather than remaining at Westminster. They then confuse the physical with the metaphysical and try to pretend that a Government in Edinburgh will be physically as well as politically closer to the people of Aberdeen. That is absolute nonsense.
I believe in the slippery slope argument. I put it in those simplistic terms because that is the way to get it over to the people of Scotland. At the end of the day that will be the crunch issue. The question will be "Do you, the people of Scotland, or the people living in Scotland, believe that this Bill is likely to lead to the break up of the United Kingdom?" That is the most precious thing which is at risk.
Other things, like more bureaucracy, more taxation and more public expenditure, are at risk, but the most precious thing is the unity of the United Kingdom. We must hammer home that the unity of the United Kingdom is at risk because the Bill inescapably introduces elements into the constitution of the United Kingdom which will result in friction.
The first element, of course, is the question raised by the hon. Member for West Lothian (Mr. Dalyell) to which as yet no satisfactory answer has been given for the very good and simple reason that there is no answer. It is an irreducible conundrum. It was interesting that the

hon. Member for Aberdeenshire, East (Mr. Henderson) said that there should be a convention to get round the problem of Scottish Members being able to vote on English domestic matters but English Members not being able to vote on Scottish domestic matters. That would lead to resentment and bitterness.
The solution of the hon. Member for Aberdeenshire, East was that there should be a convention or law that Scottish Members of Parliament did not vote on certain matters. The hon. Gentleman knows—if he does not, he should not have spoken—that no British Government whose majority depends upon Scottish and Welsh Members would tolerate that. Why does the hon. Gentleman put that argument forward? He knows that this would be an infallible way of breaking up the present Government of the United Kingdom, and that is what he wants.
Here we have the Government introducing an unjust and unstable element and then ignoring it and passing it by. In my view it is inescapable that this element will lead to discontent which in turn will lead to demands for separatism—I believe just as much from English Members of Parliament as from Scottish Members of Parliament.
The second element of friction that is inescapably intertwined with the Bill is that in a unitary State one cannot give a permanent advantage in terms of aid, representation or political attention to one part of the United Kingdom without correspondingly and necessarily doing a disadvantage to other parts of the United Kingdom. That means that the more Scotland gets, the less there will be for Merseyside. Merseyside will say that its unemployment is higher than in Glasgow and will wonder why it does not get more aid than Scotland.

Mr. Sillars: It is not.

Mr. Sproat: It certainly is. Taking another part of the United Kingdom, the people of East Anglia will say that their wages are about £5 a week less than the average wage in Scotland and will ask: "Why is Scotland getting the aid, and not East Anglia?". That is another irreducible conundrum, as irreducible as the West Lothian question. One cannot give a permanent advantage to one part of the United Kingdom without necessarily doing a corresponding disadvantage


to other parts of the United Kingdom. More for Scotland means less for Merseyside.

Mr. Crawford: Is not the logic of the hon. Gentleman's argument that he would abolish the London weighting allowance because that gives help to London at the expense of other parts of the United Kingdom?

Mr. Sproat: Not at all. I believe that help should be given on the basis of need and not on the basis of geography. There are parts of London where the unemployment rate is 13 per cent. In Aberdeen it is barely one-quarter of that. Why, therefore, should Aberdeen get more help than those parts of London? As a Member of Parliament for Aberdeen, I would not advocate the argument put forward by the hon. Member for Perth and East Perthshire (Mr. Crawford). I say quite clearly that we should give help on the basis of need and not on the basis of geography.
The third element of friction which inescapably arises out of the nature of the Bill, and which would produce a division between the Assembly in Edinburgh and Parliament here, is one which has been admitted by hon. Members on all sides in different ways. It is that no one believes that if the Bill ever comes into operation it will set up a structure which would last. There are members of the Liberal Party who believe that federalism is the answer. Obviously the Minister of State does not believe that. He is therefore in disagreement with his supporters on the Liberal Bench.
The SNP believes that independence is the only answer and the hon. Member for South Ayrshire (Mr. Sillars) believes in independence tied to the Common Market. No doubt he will explain exactly what his position is. But it is certainly different from the views of the Minister of State, the Liberal Party and the SNP.
In other words, once a Scottish Assembly is set up there would not be a single Member of that Assembly who would wish the structure to remain in being. They would all be trying to change it and to divide it from Westminster. Everything good that happened in Scotland would be assigned to the fact that we had a Scottish Assembly and everything bad that happened in Scotland

would be assigned to the fact that we were still shackled to Westminster. Every time unemployment rose there would be shouts of it now being time to break from Westminster, although, in fact, unemployment in certain parts of England might be higher. But there is no logic in such a situation.
Nor, indeed, would it be merely the SNP Members who would be demanding this. We know that a great many Labour supporters would very much like to be Members of the Scottish Assembly. They would also say, "We must have more money. We must get more out of the Westminster Parliament for Scotland."
There might even be Tory Members doing the same thing. It is not just a question of a few SNP nuts doing it. People from respectable parties would be showing their political virility by demanding more for Scotland. They would claim that the reason Scotland was not getting more money was that the English were holding them down.
This Bill cannot work. I have mentioned three irreducible factors—the West Lothian factor, the factor of money and aid and the factor that Members of the Scottish Assembly would be seeking to break up the relationship between the Assembly and this House. We can have a unitary State, a federal State or independent States, but we can never have a lasting settlement based on a position between a unitary State and a federal State. That is what the Bill seeks to do. It cannot be done, and that is why the people of Scotland will reject it.

Mr. Eric Ogden: I make only two remarks about the interesting and lively speech of the hon. Member for Aberdeen, South (Mr. Sproat), who claimed that more for Scotland necessarily meant less for Merseyside. That may have seemed to him to be an easy phrase to use, but matters do not have to turn out in that way. I thought that the hon. Gentleman destroyed part of his argument when he said that he wanted not geographical aid but aid to where it was needed most. If he had followed that with the corollary "From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs", there might one day be room for him on the Government Benches.
I disagreed with him when he claimed that the timetable motion on these proceedings in Committee necessarily meant that the Government had the Bill in their pockets in the form in which they wanted it to have. I have seen no sign recently of any great burst of self-satisfaction on the faces of my Front Bench colleagues, whether they are aided by fierce Whips or by the more charming ones, such as my hon. Friend the Member for Bolton, West (Mrs. Taylor). It would be a mistake for the Government to assume that the Bill, as they want it, is in their pockets.
I follow the injunction of my neighbour in Merseyside, the right hon. Member for Crosby (Mr. Page), who reminded the Committee—and the hon. Member for Aberdeen, South took no notice of him—that a timetable motion is supposed to concentrate the mind. Regardless of whether we are supposed to discuss the Eastleigh question or the West Lothian question, and regardless of whether speeches are made by the Manchurian Candidate, the hon. Member for Liverpool, West Derby, or anyone else, the task before us is to decide the niceties to which my hon. Friend the Member for Renfrewshire, West (Mr. Buchan) referred—in other words, the letter of the law as it will be written into the law. Apart from the broad brush and a great sweep of emotional arguments about unity, it is the letter of the law which decides whether I or one of my constituents will be inside Walton Gaol or outside it—will be free or not free.
When we are in Committee, we should concern ourselves with the alternatives available to us. Regardless of what question appears in the referendum, the question to which I have to direct my mind is whether we take the clause as it is or any one of the 12 alternatives which are available on the Notice Paper as of 6.13 p.m. on 22nd November 1977. Those alternatives seem to concentrate upon the middle phrase in the clause.
No one has challenged the first sentence in the clause:
The following provisions of this Act make changes in the government of Scotland as part of the United Kingdom.
The second part of the clause was challenged by the hon. Member for South

Ayrshire (Mr. Sillars). He does not want to see the inclusion of
… the supreme authority of Parliament to make laws for the United Kingdom or any part of it.
But it is mainly the middle part,
They do not affect the unity of the United Kingdom",
to which objection is taken.

Mr. Dalyell: Has it occurred to my hon. Friend and the electors of West Derby that if this Bill becomes an Act, whether they like it or not, their Government inevitably is changed? It is not only a question of the hon. Member for West Lothian. It is a question of 70 other Members of Parliament being able to vote on matters affecting West Derby but not about matters affecting their own constituencies. We are outsiders so long as I can vote on matters affecting Liverpool but not about matters affecting my own county town of Linlithgow. It is not just changing the government of the area which my hon. Friend represents. Therefore, is not there a fundamental flaw in the clause?

Mr. Ogden: I think that that comes in a later clause.
I have put on record the fact that the vast majority of my constituents in West Derby could hardly care less about the Bill, rightly or wrongly—[HON. MEMBERS: "They will."] Certainly it will affect them eventually. Certainly it ought to affect them. Perhaps more of them should be concerned.
But the fact is that over the last 12 months their interest has been minimal. They are of the view that if that is what the Scots wants, let them get on with it—and I may say that we have more than the normal proportion of former Scottish, Welsh and English people living in Merseyside. At the moment, their reaction to the Bill is to say "Yuk!" That is the best way that I can describe it. However, there is no doubt that the legislation and what follows from it will affect them one way or the other.
I hope that the Minister of State will explain the middle phrase in the clause. It is merely an expression in law? Is he saying that in law the proposals do not affect the unity of the United Kingdom? If so, why does he not say so?
6.15 p.m.
If it is felt that the offending words must go and that one of the alternatives before us is preferable, I select as my three bankers Amendment No. 8, except that I do not like the suggestion that we should delete the right of Parliament to make laws for the whole United Kingdom—what Parliament can do, Parliament can undo—then Amendment No. 3, which is the suggestion of the right hon. Member for Crosby, and, finally, Amendment No. 2.
However, there is another way. If the Minister says that the middle phrase is merely an expression of the law and that we can clarify it later, possibly on Report, I think that that will be acceptable. If my hon. Friend does not say that, I may encourage Opposition Members to say that, of the three alternatives which I have mentioned, rather than the clause as it is, it would be preferable to go for Amendment No. 2.

Mr. Ian Gow: Despite the fact that the Minister of State has won a distinguished debating prize and despite the fact that he is a solicitor—

Mr. John Smith: No. I am not.

Mr. Gow: A barrister?

Mr. Smith: No. I am not.

Mr. Nicholas Fairbairn: Perhaps I can help my hon. Friend, who is a solicitor. The Minister of State is not a solicitor and is not a barrister. He is an advocate, although few people would realise it.

Mr. Gow: My error serves to underline what I am about to say.
It is treating the Committee with less than courtesy and treating the subject matter of this first group of amendments with less than the importance that it deserves that we should have the intermittent attendance only of the Lord Advocate. Indeed, I go further. Since Clause 1 affects not just the legal position of Scotland but that of this House in relation to the rest of the kingdom, there is a strong case for saying that we should have one of the other Law Officers here, especially bearing in mind that there are now three Law Officers acting for the rest of the United Kingdom, apart from Scotland.
There are some very pertinent points relating to the legal position of the Bill, especially because of the confusion of thought that we have had from the Treasury Bench, not only in the muttered comments of the Minister of State but also in the words on 14th November to which the right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell) drew attention Whether or not Clause 1 is in the Bill, it will make not the slightest difference to the interpretation that the courts will give to the Bill should it become an Act of Parliament. I should have appreciated the views of the Lord Advocate on this. Instead, we have to make do with those of the Minister of State. However, I shall be grateful if the Minister will address himself to the question whether he believes the legal effect of the Bill would be altered if Clause 1 were omitted.
Clause 1 is purely declaratory. It does not enact legislation, and that is one very important flaw in the draftsmanship of the Bill. One cannot simply declare in an Act of Parliament that something is so, and particularly one cannot declare it when, as I shall seek to show, the reality is precisely the opposite of the declaratory intent of Clause 1.
My hon. Friend the Member for Eastleigh (Mr. Price) rightly drew attention to the effect of Clause 18. The Minister of State did not seek to intervene, but I heard him distinctly mutter about the effect of Clause 18, in which in subsection (2) it is provided that
A Scottish Assembly Act may amend or repeal a provision made by or under an Act of Parliament.
It is apparently the contention of the Minister of State that that power contained in Clause 18 does not affect the supreme authority of Parliament to make laws for the United Kingdom or any part of it. How can the Minister of State really sustain that argument? If to a subordinate legislative assembly there is granted power to amend an Act of this Parliament, it is not possible to argue that the provisions of Clause 1 are accurate and meaningful.
Then there are the provisions of Schedule 10. Here we come to a matter of the greatest importance. Again, the Minister of State was heard to mutter in comment upon the speech of his hon. Friend the Member for Renfrewshire,


West (Mr. Buchan). Are we really being told that the House of Commons will be able to debate all those items listed in Schedule 10? Are we being told that all those items listed in Schedule 10, devolved matters, could be the subject of Adjournment debates, of debates and of Questions in the House?
It was the Secretary of State, as the right hon. Member for Down, South pointed out, who argued in the opposite sense to that in which the muttered comment of the Minister of State was made about an hour ago. The Secretary of State for Scotland said that
it will not be possible to raise with the Secretary of State for Scotland matters for which he is not responsible."—[Official Report, 14th November 1977; Vol. 939, c. 58.]
Is it not the case that the Secretary of State for Scotland is not and will not be responsible for the devolved matters as set out in Schedule 10? If he is not responsible for those matters, how then is it possible to say, by assertion in Clause 1, that the Bill or these provisions do not affect
the supreme authority of Parliament to make laws for the United Kingdom or any part of it"?
To have a declaratory preamble to a Bill which would be incapable of judicial interpretation in the courts is bad enough, but to have in a Bill a declaratory provision which is manifestly contrary to the specific provisions which follow in the Bill is not just a piece of careless and negligent draftsmanship: it makes a mockery of the legislation which the Government have brought before the Committee.
Therefore, I hope that the Minister of State will try to reconcile the answer given by his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State—whom we welcome back to our debates—with his own muttered comments earlier. He should have intervened properly instead of muttering as he did. It was a very serious point, and one which has been raised by many of my hon. Friends, and the Minister of State must address himself to it.
I warn the Minister that this is something to which, when we come to the subsequent clauses of the Bill, we shall return again and again.

Mr. Robert Rhodes James: I at least share one point in common with the Leader of the Liberal Party. That is his references to the work of the Scottish Grand Committee. In a previous incarnation I was for two years its Clerk. It was widely regarded in the Clerk's Department as a form of torture by which the ancient Chinese would have been impressed.
I should like to deal with the point made earlier by my hon. Friends concerning the Secretary of State's reference to the speech of the Prime Minister when he introduced the Second Reading of the Scotland and Wales Bill. The order of priorities that he chose was very significant. He chose first the diversity and distinctive traditions of Scotland and Wales. He chose secondly the conservation of the economic and political unity of the United Kingdom. He chose third the continuing and unimpaired sovereignty of Parliament, and said that this was what devolution was all about—a statement which many of us would find controversial. He put fourth fairness to the whole of the United Kingdom.
I find significance in that particular order of priorities, chosen not only in the debates that we have had previously but in the debate we have had on the Second Reading of the new Bill and already at the beginning of this Committee.
The Secretary of State endeavoured to emphasise that the Scottish Assembly must have a worthwhile range of powers, but he went on to point out that these do not include economic and industrial powers, nor even the Scottish Development Agency. I come back to the point made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Cambridgeshire (Mr. Pym), with whom, as usual, I find myself in considerable agreement, when he said,
Our basic feeling, our gut instinct, is that the consequences of this Bill … will in the course of time damage the Union and could conceivably prove fatal to its continuance."—[Official Report, 14th November 1977; Vol. 939, c. 74]
I would go further than my right hon. Friend. I am convinced that the Bill will irreparably harm the Union and will do so at once.
The tragedy of this Bill, and of its predecessor, is that it owes a very great deal to the inheritance we have from the right hon. Member for Huyton (Sir H.


Wilson)—namely, the approach that when one has a substantial and real problem one does not endeavour to resolve that problem but one throws it at a cloud of committees and commissions, and in this case an Assembly. One then proudly announces that one has solved the problem when in fact one has evaded the problem and created another problem.
One has to look at the great constitutional problems which confront this nation. One has to look at the dilemma, which we still face, of the rôle between the individual and the State, the relationship between Parliament and the Executive, the growth of government, both direct and indirect, the ever-increasing gulf between the rulers and the ruled. One has to look at the alienation of the people, at the creation of new powers which, beyond Parliament, have grown up in the past 10 or 15 years; and at the resultant breakdown of confidence on the part of the people of this country in our institutions and, above all, in the House of Commons and Parliament.
I agree with the hon. Member for Aberdeenshire, East (Mr. Henderson) that the House of Commons and Parliament are, indeed, susceptible to reform, but I do not see that the answer to that is to impose upon the people of Scotland many of the follies and certainly many of the evasions for which the House of Commons is responsible and which are brought into the House of Comomns.
The Bill is an evasion, and a calculated evasion, of these vital issues. This declaratory clause states something that is not true and is not so. I believe passionately in the unity of this nation. I am convinced that without that unity, which, I believe, exists, there is no way in which we can hope to resolve the problems that march down upon us. The Bill imperils that unity.
It goes further, and the clause declares it. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Cambridgeshire has pointed out, there is built-in disunity and built-in discord. This cannot be eliminated merely by some words in the initial clause. In my view the Bill weakens Parliament and this nation. The hon. Member for West Lothian (Mr. Dalyell) put a question to my right hon. Friend the Member for Cambridgeshire about the Conservative Party's view of the

Scottish Assembly. Obviously I do not speak for the Conservative Party, but I can give my own answer. I am totally and implacably opposed to a Scottish Assembly because it is the first and a major step on the road to separatism.

6.30 p.m.

Mr. Fairbairn: It is just as well that this Bill should start with two constitutional lies. The first of the lies affects the unity of the United Kingdom—whatever that may be. It is the second lie that I find most disturbing, namely, that the Bill's proposals do not affect the supreme authority of Parliament to make laws for the United Kingdom or any part of it.
It is not difficult to find fundamental absurdities in this Bill, but it is a fundamental absurdity to start the Bill proclaiming that a sovereign Parliament is not affected when it is transferring powers to a subsidiary and in many ways independent Parliament and not defining or outlining the powers of that subsidiary Parliament or the powers of the original Parliament.
If this sentence means anything at all, it means that it is coincident and concomitant with the power of the Scottish Assembly to legislate on things like deer and pollution and other things in Scotland, but there is also a concomitant power in this Parliament to legislate on the same things in the opposite direction. The powers of this Parliament over all the matters devolved are not excluded from the right of this Parliament to deal with them and legislate for them.
In the cause of honesty—which would be rather strange in the Government's approach to what they call devolution—we should be told whether there will be a convention entered into by the Parliament of the United Kingdom saying that it will not touch certain matters, just as the hon. Member for Aberdeenshire, East (Mr. Henderson) said that there will be a convention whereby hon. Members in this House will not vote on certain matters. There will have to be a convention that this Government do not legislate on matters that they have devolved to the Scottish Assembly.
However, all this is omitted from the Bill, and that is wrong. The fact that it is omitted means that there is a contradiction in the first sentence which


claims that the power of this Parliament is undiminished in any corner of the nation. Let us not forget that it is not just Scotsmen who live in the geographical part over which the new Assembly will have power.
It was said to me the other day by a prominent Scotsman who has been a Socialist all his days that he did not wish to know whether education for his child was to be decided in London or Edinburgh. He just wanted to know that it would be decided in his own home. The first sanction of this Bill as it stands is that matters like education could be decided simultaneously and in opposite directions by both Parliaments.
There is no question but that the Assembly will be used by the Scottish nationalists to set up independence. Inevitably, all blame will be put on Westminster for failure, and all praise for success will go to Edinburgh. There is no question but that the Assembly inevitably will result in continuous attempts at independence, and once this deformed child is born, nothing can prevent the nationalists from trying to give it a separate existence.
Therefore, with respect, I say to my right hon. Friend the Member for Cambridgeshire (Mr. Pym) that I find his amendment attacking Clause 1 as defective as Clause 1 itself. It is an inevitable lie, a falsehood, and it adds to constitutional confusion, because it does not separate or define the proper powers of the competing Parliaments.

Mr. Alexander Fletcher: This debate has been characterised by two things. First, not surprisingly, not a single Government Back Bencher has spoken in support of the Bill, and I expect that this trend will continue throughout the Committee stage. Secondly, there are those hon. Members who are deeply concerned about the dangers in the Bill, like my right hon. Friend the Member for Cambridgeshire (Mr. Pym) and those hon. Members who have happily welcomed the dangers and who just cannot wait for the explosion in constitutional terms between Scotland and England. Hon. Members like the hon. Member for Aberdeenshire, East (Mr. Henderson) and the hon. Member for South Ayrshire (Mr. Sillars)

both hope that they will be lucky in this explosion and land on their feet. The country might be lucky, however, and they might land on their heads and learn a little sense from our debates today. There have been a few don't-knows in this debate, led by the hon. Member for Renfrewshire, West (Mr. Buchan), who seems to be uncertain—

Mr. Sillars: It is unfair of the hon. Member to tell people like myself that we are happily looking forward to any sort of confrontation. Would he tell me where, in any of the speeches that I have made, there is any suggestion that would enable him to draw such a conclusion? Obviously, some of us want to improve the Bill and reduce friction, but it is quite wrong to suggest that we are looking forward to the time when we can happily dance around the maypole on Carlton Hill waiting for the joyful day when confrontation comes.

Mr. Fletcher: I understand from the hon. Member's remarks generally that his language and style are not particularly cool, and that he would be quite happy to see more powers given to the Scottish Assembly.
We take this opening clause seriously and we regret the restrictions imposed by the guillotine on the debates. Whatever else emerges from the debate, the Committee obviously does not consider that this Bill has any chance of settling the question of Scottish devolution. Despite the bold wording of Clause 1, only the most determined and insensitive Ministers could claim that the Bill even approaches a settlement of the devolution principle, let alone the details. The Secretary of State has reminded the House of the four guiding principles that were laid down by the Prime Minister in introducing the previous devolution Bill. The Secretary of State repeated these four principles during the Second Reading debate on this Bill.
The first of these principles is that there must be respect for the diversity and distinctive traditions of Scotland. Are Ministers seriously suggesting that after 270 years of Union we need this Bill to remind us that Scotland is and remains different from the rest of the United Kingdom? Much of the Scottish renaissance took place after the Union, as did many of our traditions, such as pipe bands, kilts and tartans.
The second principle enunciated was the conservation of economic and political unity of the United Kingdom and that the sovereignty of Parliament should continue unimpaired. Ministers give the impression of believing that if they repeat these words often enough they will come to pass. I do not believe that this is the majority view of the House. Ministers should know that words do not command events but, like King Canute, they seem determined to learn their lesson the hard way. We do not mind if Ministers are swept away by the tide of events, but we do object to the foundations of this House and the United Kingdom being endangered by the carelessness and recklessness of the Government Front Bench.
If Clause I were effective and the nationalists really believed that the United Kingdom's unity was unimpaired, they would not be so pleased with the Government for helping the cause of separation. Yet the right hon. Member for Roxburgh, Selkirk and Peebles (Mr. Steel) said that Clause I was not important. I am surprised at his attitude on Clause 1, because at least as a federalist he would still argue the case for the unity of the United Kingdom and for making this clear in the legislation, which is what we are talking about.
The right hon. Gentleman also referred to the only occasion in the Scottish Grand Committee when we voted. That was a recent happening. There was a bit of a not on that occasion, but we did save the colleges, and the right hon. Gentleman at the time seemed to think that that was a good idea. I suggest that the Scottish Grand Committee is not a joke, except perhaps on the few occasions when Liberal Members attend.

Mr. Teddy Taylor: Not often.

Mr. Fletcher: Finally, the Secretary of State referred in his opening remarks to one other matter.

Mr. David Steel: Ignoring the trivial stuff in the hon. Gentleman's remarks, I should like to point out that there was a convention in the Scottish Grand Committee which had existed for a long time in which conscripted English Members neither spoke nor voted. Ludicrous though that might appear to any academic, it was an anomaly with which we had lived happily for many years.

Mr. Fletcher: I am not sureat it is a good idea to live happily with anomalies such as that, and I believe that we should use the business of the House more effectively. I have some ideas on the House of Lords as well, but there is no time in this debate to go into that. The Secretary of State referred on Second Reading to the fairness of the fourth guiding principle in the Bill to the whole United Kingdom. There are hon. Members from Shetland to St. Ives and from Belfast to Birmingham who simply do not believe the statement that this Bill will impose fairness throughout the United Kingdom.

Mr. Dalyell: Does the hon. Gentleman agree with his right hon. Friend the Member for Cambridgeshire (Mr. Pym), who hankers after some kind of Assembly, or with his hon. Friend the Member for Cambridge (Mr. James), who says in forthright terms that there should be no Assembly? Where does the hon. Gentleman stand on that matter?

Mr. Fletcher: When we are discussing the Conservative proposals on devolution, I shall answer that question. At this moment I am replying to the debate on a Government Bill.
The irony of this debate on the unity of the United Kingdom is that the Labour Party ever since its birth has preached the politics of envy. This has been a divisive influence in British politics. In recent years in Scotland, however, the Scottish nationalists have upstaged the Labour Party by preaching the politics of greed. That is an even greater recipe for disunity throughout the United Kingdom.
Having heard the foolish claims of nationalists in this House, I have sometimes been ashamed to be Scottish. There are no "fair shares", no traditional self-respect in their arguments, just greed, greed and more greed. They care nothing for the 270 years of history that united not only the British people but the hitherto disunited Scots.
This Bill and the impossibility of Clause 1 being effective delight the nationalists, because it will put the clock back in relations between Scotland and England. Even with North Sea oil, it will be difficult to see how the people of Scotland will benefit from this constitutional minefield. The hon. Member for


Aberdeenshire, East spoke with some understanding of the amendment but, typically, he announced that he and his colleagues would vote against it. I believe that the hon. Gentleman cannot wait for an Assembly to declare war on Westminster.
I believe that most Scots who have thought about this Bill and who are not separatists reject it as being dangerously divisive and unworkable. Sadly, it is only those who have not thought about the Bill who think that if it is implemented they may be better off in their daily lives.
The right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell) was right to say that the presence of Clause 1 was an admission of the Government's uncertainty, the uncertainty and difficulty which are the Bill itself. Clause 1 states the obvious: the opposite of what it means. It should not fool anybody. Ministers will be less than frank with the Committee and with the country if they reject the amendment.
Accepting the amendment will merely clarify the Bill and make it more realistic, and that would be more honourable than the pious hope that is Clause 1 as it stands. It would be better still, of course, if the Minister agreed to withdraw Clause 1 in its entirety. That would at least allow the Committee stage to get back to a more realistic start.

6.45 p.m.

Mr. John Smith: I wish to congratulate the hon. Member for Edinburgh, North (Mr. Fletcher) on his first devolution speech from the Opposition Front Bench. I also admire his courage in being willing to take up the challenge of explaining Conservative policy on devolution.
I noted with interest that the hon. Gentleman did not say what the Conservatives made the hon. Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Taylor) say the other evening, namely, that he was in favour of devolution in principle. I am often attacked by the hon. Member for Cathcart, and I must ask for fair treatment from him. If he was made to say that he is in favour of devolution in principle, surely the same should apply to the hon. Member for Edinburgh, North, who last year abstained on the

Second Reading of the Scotland and Wales Bill.

Mr. Teddy Taylor: Since the Minister referred to me, I hope he will allow me to say that I pointed out that we were dealing with a bad Government Bill, and nothing else. If the Minister wants to swop quotations, I have a quotation from a speech made by him, a pungent anti-devolution speech, at the Scottish Labour Party Conference. The Minister then pointed out that one cannot have a devolved Assembly without wrecking the whole structure of local government.

Mr. Smith: That is not what I said in that debate. The hon. Gentleman should read it again. I voted for the proposition that was carried at the Scottish Labour Party Conference. If the hon. Gentleman continues to make such interventions, he will prevent me having the time to answer the points made in this debate by many of his hon. Friends. The hon. Gentleman well knows that he was instructed by the Opposition Front Bench to say on Second Reading, that he favoured devolution in principle. Since he carried out those instructions, is it not fair that the same rule should be applied to the hon. Member for Edinburgh, North?
We have had a wide-ranging debate which has covered a large area. This is not entirely unfamiliar territory because in the last Session of Parliament we spent some days debating this provision on the Scotland and Wales Bill. It is not surprising that some of the same arguments have reappeared.
I reject the criticism that Clause 1 is an inaccurate statement of the purposes of the Bill. It is a declaratory clause. It does not have the legal effect which would allow it to be used as a rule of construction. That would be one of the effects of the amendment tabled by the right hon. Member for Cambridgeshire (Mr. Pym). It is not part of the Government's intention to make it any more than a declaration.
But what does it declare? It affirms the continuing unity of the United Kingdom and the unabated and undivided sovereignty of Parliament. That is correct. By implication it excludes separatism and federalism. It is not a federal Bill or a separatist Bill. It is a Bill that will allow the undivided sovereignty of Parliament to continue.
It is important that we should make a distinction between power and sovereignty. Extensive powers are devolved to Scotland. Stormont is an example of the continued sovereignty of Parliament because, as Parliament created Stormont, so did Parliament eventually remove Stormont by legislation passed in this Parliament.
Some people will argue "What is the point of having a declaratory clause in a Bill if it is not to be used for anything more than the purposes of declaration?" We have followed Section 1 of the Northern Ireland Constitution Act 1973 in which a similar type of clause declared that Northern Ireland remained part of the United Kingdom. Therefore, it is not without precedent to put such a declaratory clause in a Bill. It expresses the concept behind the Bill, namely, that we are devolving not sovereignty but powers.
Amendment No. 2, moved by the right hon. Member for Cambridgeshire has attracted as much criticism as the clause itself has. It was noticeable that very few of his hon. Friends came to his assistance by saying that he was putting forward a sensible amendment. I was struck by the fact that he did not develop the argument for his amendment very much. I draw the attention of the Committee to one feature of it. If we make it a rule of construction that the Bill should be construed in a certain way, that invites the courts to consider whether the unity of the United Kingdom is affected in a case coming before them. I think it undesirable that we should in such a way politicise the courts.
There is a difference between that and the reference of wires questions, and the mechanism under the Bill for the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council to resolve them. If we make it a rule of construction that the courts should take into account considerations of the unity of the United Kingdom, we tread on fairly dangerous territory into which I do not think the courts will wish to enter and which. I believe, most prudent parliamentarians would not wish the courts to enter.

Sir David Renton: I think that the Minister has put an interpretation on the amendment which it does not deserve. All it comes to is that, in construing the Bill the court will simply look at the Bill itself and not pay regard to this very

problem to which, he says, it shall pay regard. In other words, the amendment gives the court guidance that there is nothing in the Bill which impairs the unity of the United Kingdom. The Opposition have been fantastically generous to the Minister by tabling an amendment with that effect, but it is not the effect that he is now describing.

Mr. Smith: With respect to the right hon. and learned Gentleman, the use of the phrase "shall be construed" must be taken in its ordinary meaning, that it should be so construed by the courts. It may be that the courts would not be drawn into that consideration, but I should have thought that that declaratory principle as it stands, if guidance be required, gives enough. But to go further and imply that there should be a rule of construction emerging from the clause would have the dangers to which I have referred. If I am overstating the case, no doubt the right hon. Member for Cambridgeshire will correct me.

Mr. Raison: rose—

Mr. Smith: If the hon. Member for Aylesbury (Mr. Raison) will contain himself, I shall answer some of the questions that he asked. On the amendments to which he spoke, he raised the question of what hon. Members will be entitled to ask about in the House after the devolution of powers to the Scottish Assembly takes place. It is for Mr. Speaker and the House itself to decide whether any Question or subject for debate here may be raised or debated. Nevertheless, the Government would expect that the rules which have been developed in regard to the responsibilities of Ministers would continue to appy. Simply stated, this would mean that Questions would have to relate to matters for which Ministers remained responsible.
Northern Ireland provides a precedent. It was held that Questions dealing with matters transferred to the Government of Northern Ireland were not in order. If these precedents were followed, Ministers would be allowed to answer any Questions on matters for which they remained responsible, under the use or potential use of the powers that the statute itself would afford, primarily in relation to override and matters of that sort, which are powers available to United Kingdom


Ministers. But essentially it will be for the House to decide its own rules on the matter, as it decided them following the setting up of the Stormont Parliament in Northern Ireland.
I hope that that clarifies the matter slightly. It is not for the Government in this Bill to write the rules for the future conduct of the House. It is for the House to decide.
The hon. Member for Aylesbury does not understand the attitude that some Scottish Members have about the opportunities available at Question Time. There is a real problem to which the right hon. Member for Roxburgh, Selkirk and Peebles (Mr. Steel) was right to draw attention. One of the troubles of having a territorial Secretary of State with a whole series of different responsibilities is that when he comes to the House of Commons to answer on a whole field of responsibilities, hon Members have to choose between education, health, housing or transport when they put down their Questions to him. I do not think that the hon. Member for Aylesbury understands the difficulties which that causes for hon. Members.
The right hon. Member for Roxburgh, Selkirk and Peebles referred also to the Executive. Since the executive responsibility of the Secretary of State for Scotland is so wide, he is exposed on that whole front only when he comes to answer Questions, whereas when Ministers responsible for English subjects, such as education, answer Questions only one facet of the Government's work is subject to exposure at one time.
I ask the hon. Member for Aylesbury, who is always very correct in trying to keep us on the right path and to tell us what the real point is, to remember that there are other parts of the United Kingdom, apart from the area which he represents, which have special problems. One of the things that we are trying to do here is to create a wider democratic opportunity than there was before. I attend Scottish Question Time pretty regularly, and it is just not true that there have been occasions when the number of Questions did not fill the time available. The hon. Member has been confused by the fact that the Lord Advocate answers Questions from 3.20 p.m. onwards during Scottish Questions.

Mr. Raison: The fact remains that at the last Scottish Question Time only 20 or so Scottish Questions were put down by Scottish Members, which is well below the normal equivalent on an English subject.

Mr. Smith: I do not know how the hon. Member gets his normal equivalent on an English subject. The Questions more than fill the time available. Scottish Members are astute enough to work out that there is no point in putting down a great many more Questions when normally we do not get past Question No. 20. We all know that that happens.

Mr. Alexander Fletcher: I hope that the Minister is not saying that we need this Bill just to sort out Scottish Question Time. It is for the Secretary of State to delegate his responsibilities more effectively to other Ministers in his Department to answer for the fields for which they are responsible.

Mr. Smith: If the hon. Member wishes to continue to speak on this subject from the Opposition Front Bench, he should try to raise the level of his contributions above the kind of frivolous intervention that he has just made, which does not help us very much.
The right hon. Member for Crosby (Mr. Page) spoke to other amendments on a slightly different tack, and I raise the same objection to his argument as I put in response to the case for a rule of construction. In Amendment No. 10 he raises the question of the prerogatives, rights and privileges of the Monarchy, a subject which was touched on in the Second Reading debate on the Scotland and Wales Bill by the right hon. Lady, the Leader of the Opposition. At that time I took the opportunity to reply to some of these points.
I should explain that the position in the Scotland Bill is no different from the position under the Scotland and Wales Bill. Nothing in the transfer of powers involved in devolution affects the position of Her Majesty, who would, for instance, continue to receive advice only from Ministers, not direct from the Scottish Executive.
Aspects of the Royal Prerogative, such as the Prerogative of Mercy are specifically reserved under Clause 62 (1). Any fears that the Bill would in some way diminish the position of the Crown are


groundless. The amendment of the right hon. Member for Crosby is inappropriate on a narrower point because the relevant aspects of Her Majesty's Prerogative interests are dealt with by substantive provisions in the Bill. Clause 24 and Schedule 6, for example, are concerned with provisions of the Scottish Assembly requiring the Crown's consent, and Clause 21 (3) deals with the exercise on behalf of Her Majesty of certain aspects of Her Prerogative by the Scottish Executive, that is, the Scottish Secretaries.
I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will feel that there is another side to the argument which he poses, and that, in weighing up the subject, the Committee will feel that it is already covered in the Bill.
By his amendment my hon. Friend the Member for South Ayreshire (Mr. Sillars) wanted to leave out large sections of the clause. He seems to be less concerned about the continuing unity of the United Kingdom than some others are, and he will forgive me if I part company with him on that. I believe that this is a useful declaratory clause. I entirely reject the criticism that somehow it is inaccurate.

The right hon. Member for Cambridgeshire said that I talked about enhancing the unity of the United Kingdom by devolution. I was talking about the general principles behind devolution.

We have debated the whole matter extensively on Second Reading. This is a useful declaratory clause. I put it no higher than that, but the Committee has had an opportunity to consider some matters that we wished it to consider in greater detail. We are under great restrictions with the guillotine, but I should point out that this amendment was discussed last year when there was no guillotine but we have happily discussed it again this year under a guillotine.

Mr. Pym: The Minister does not want to accept the amendment and does not want rules of construction to apply—

It being Seven o'clock, The CHAIRMANproceeded, pursuant to the Order this day, to put forthwith the Question already proposed from the Chair.

Question put, That the amendment be made:—

The Committee divided: Ayes 178, Noes 206.

Division No. 13]
AYES
[7.00 p.m.


Aitken, Jonathan
Drayson, Burnaby
James, David


Alisons Michael
Dunlop, John
Jenkin, Rt Hon P. (Wanst'd&amp;W'df'd)


Amery, Rt Hon Julian
Emery, Peter
Jessel, Toby


Arnold, Tom
Eyre, Reginald
Jopling, Michael


Atkins, Rt Hon H. (Spelthorne)
Fairbairn, Nicholas
Joseph, Rt Hon. Sir Keith


Awdry, Daniel
Fairgrieve, Russell
Kaberry, Sir Donald


Banks, Robert
Farr, John
Kershaw, Anthony


Bell, Ronald
Finsberg, Geoffrey
King, Evelyn (South Dorset)


Benyon, W.
Fisher, Sir Nigel
King, Tom (Bridgwater)


Berry, Hon Anthony
Fletcher, Alex (Edinburgh N)
Knox, David


Biffen, John
Fookes, Miss Janet
Lamont, Norman


Biggs-Davison, John
Fowler, Norman (Sutton C'f'd)
Latham, Arthur (Paddington)


Boscawen, Hon Robert
Fox, Marcus
Lawrence, Ivan


Bottomley, Peter
Gardner, Edward (S Fylde)
Lawson, Nigel


Boyson, Dr Rhodes (Brent)
Gilmour, Sir John (East File)
Le Marchant, Spencer


Braine, Sir Bernard
Glyn, Dr Alan
Loveridge, John


Brittan, Leon
Godber, Rt Hon Joseph
Luce, Richard


Brocklebank-Fowler, C.
Goodhew, Victor
McCrindle, Robert


Brooke, Peter
Gorst, John
McCusker, H.


Brotherton, Michael
Gow, Ian (Eastbourne)
Macfarlane, Nail


Bryan, Sir Paul
Gray, Hamish
MacGregor, John


Buchanan-Smith, Alick
Griffiths, Eldon
MacKay, Andrew (Stechford)


Buck, Antony
Grist, Ian
Madel, David


Budgen, Nick
Grylls, Michael
Marten, Neil


Bulmer, Esmond
Hall, Sir John
Mates, Michael


Butler, Adam (Bosworth)
Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)
Mather, Carol


Chalker, Mrs Lynda
Hampson, Dr Keith
Maudling, Rt Hon Reginald


Channon, Paul
Harrison, Col Sir Harwood (Eye)
Mawby, Ray


Churchill, W. S.
Havers, Rt Hon Sir Michael
Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin


Clark, Alan (Plymouth, Sutton)
Hawkins, Paul
Mayhew, Patrick


Clark, William (Croydon S)
Hayhoe, Barney
Meyer, Sir Anthony


Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)
Hicks, Robert
Miller, Hal (Bromsgrove)


Clegg, Walter
Holland, Philip
Mills, Peter


Cooke, Robert (Bristol W)
Hordern, Peter
Molyneaux, James


Cope, John
Howe, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey
Monro, Hector


Cormack, Patrick
Hunt, David (Wirral)
Morrison, Charles (Devizes)


Costain, A. P.
Hunt, John (Ravensbourne)
Morrison, Hon Peter (Chester)


Dean, Paul (N Somerset)
Hurd, Douglas
Neave, Airey


Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James
Hutchison, Michael Clark
Neubert, Michael




Ogden, Eric
Ross, William (Londonderry)
Taylor, Teddy (Cathcart)


Onslow, Cranley
Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)
Tebbit, Norman


Page, John (Harrow West)
Rost, Peter (SE Derbyshire)
Temple-Morris, Peter


Page, Rt Hon R. Graham (Crosby)
Scott, Nicholas
Thatcher, Rt Hon Margaret


Page, Richard (Workington)
Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)
Townsend, Cyril D.


Percival, Ian
Shelton, William (Streatham)
Trotter, Neville


Peyton, Rt Hon John
Shepherd, Colin
van Straubenzee, W. R.


Powell, Rt Hon J. Enoch
Shersby, Michael
Viggers, Peter


Prentice, Rt Hon Reg
Sims, Rog
Walker. Rt Hon P. (Worcester)


Price, David (Eastleigh)
Skeet, T. H. H.
Wall, Patrick


Pym, Rt Hon Francis
Smith, Timothy John (Ashfield)
Warren, Kenneth


Raison, Timothy
Speed, Keith
Weatherill, Bernard


Rathbone, Tim
Spence, John
Wells, John


Rees-Davies, W. R.
Sproat, Iain
Wiggin, Jerry


Renton, Rt Hon Sir D. (Hunts)
Stainton, Keith
Winterton, Nicholas


Renton, Tim (Mid-Sussex)
Stanbrook, Ivor
Wood, Rt Hon Richard


Rhodes James, R.
Stanley, John
Younger, Hon George


Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon
Steen, Anthony (Wavertree)



Ridsdale, Julian
Stewart, Ian (Hitchin)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Rifkind, Malcolm
Stokes, John
Sir George Young and


Roberts, Michael (Cardiff NW)
Stradling Thomas, J.
Mr Jim Lester.


Roberts, Wyn (Conway)
Tapsell, Peter





NOES


Ailaun, Frank
Gilbert, Dr John
Maynard, Miss Joan


Armstrong, Ernest
Ginsburg, David
Mikardo, Ian


Ashton, Joe
Golding, John
Millan, Rt Hon Bruce


Atkinson, Norman
Gould, Bryan
Miller, Dr M. S. (E Kilbride)


Bain, Mrs. Margaret
Gourlay, Harry
Mitchell, Austin


Barnett, Guy (Greenwich)
Graham. Ted
Moonman, Eric


Bates, Alf
Grimond, Rt Hon J.
Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)


Bean, R. E.
Grocott, Bruce
Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)


Beith, A. J.
Hardy, Peter
Murray, Rt Hon Ronald King


Bennett, Andrew (Stockport N)
Harper, Joseph
Newens, Stanley


Bishop, Rt Hon Edward
Harrison, Rt Hon Walter
O'Halloran, Michael


Blenkinsop, Arthur
Hart, Rt Hon Judith
Padley, Walter


Boardman, H.
Hatton, Frank
Palmer, Arthur


Booth, Rt Hon Albert
Henderson, Douglas
Park, George


Boothroyd, Miss Betty
Hooley, Frank
Parker, John


Bottomley, Rt Hon Arthur
Howell, Rt Hon Denis (B'ham, Sm H)
Parry, Robert


Brown, Hugh D. (Provan)
Huckfield, Les
Pavitt, Laurie


Buchan, Norman
Hughes, Rt Hon C. (Anglesey)
Pendry, Tom


Callaghan, Jim (Middleton &amp; P)
Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)
Penhaligon, David


Campbell, Ian
Hughes, Roy (Newport)
Price, William (Rugby)


Carmichael, Neil
Hunter, Adam
Radice, Giles


Carter-Jones, Lewis
Irvine, Rt Hon Sir A. (Edge Hill)
Rees, Rt Hon Merlyn (Leeds S)


Cartwright, John
Jackson, Miss Margaret (Lincoln)
Reid, George


Clemitson, Ivor
Jay, Rt Hon Douglas
Roberts, Albert (Normanton)


Cocks, Rt Hon Michael (Bristol S)
Jeger, Mrs Lena
Robinson, Geoffrey


Coleman, Donald
John, Brynmor
Roderick, Caerwyn


Cook, Robin F. (Edin C)
Johnson, James (Hull West)
Rodgers, George (Chorley)


Corbett, Robin
Johnson, Walter (Derby S)
Rooker, J. W.


Cox, Thomas (Tooting)
Johnston, Russell (Inverness)
Roper, John


Craigen, Jim (M[...]ryhill)
Jones, Barry (East Flint)
Rose, Paul B.


Crawtord, Douglas
Jones, Dan (Burnley)
Ross, Stephen (Isle of Wight)


Crawshaw, Richard
Kelley, Richard
Ross, Rt Hon w. (Kilmarnock)


Cronin, John
Kerr, Russell
Sandelson, Neville


Cryer, Bob
Kilfedder, James
Sever, J.


Dalyell, Tam
Lambie, David
Shaw, Arnold (Ilford South)


Davidson, Arthur
Lamborn, Harry
Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert


Davies, Bryan (Enfield N)
Lamond, James
Shore, Rt Hon Peter


Davies, Ifor (Gower)
Latham, Arthur (Paddington)
Silkin, Rt Hon John (Deptford)


Davis, Clinton (Hackney C)
Lestor, Miss Joan (Eton &amp; Slough)
Sillars, James


Deakins, Eric
Lipton, Marcus
Silverman, Julius


Dean, Joseph (Leeds West)
Litterick, Tom
Skinner, Dennis


Dempsey, James
Loyden, Eddie
Small, William


Doig, Peter
Lyon, Alexander (York)
Smith, John (N Lanarkshire)


Dormand, J. D.
Lyons, Edward (Bradford W)
Snape, Peter


Duffy, A. E. P.
McCartney, Hugh
Spearing, Nigel


Edge, Geoff
MacCormick, Iain
Spriggs, Leslie


Ennals, Rt Hon David
McDonald, Dr Oonagh
Stallard, A. W.


Evans, Gwynfor (Carmarthen)
McElhone, Frank
Steel, Rt Hon David


Ewing, Harry (Stirling)
MacFarquhar, Roderick
Stewart, Rt Hon Donald


Ewing, Mrs Winifred (Moray)
McGuire, Michael (Ince)
Stewart, Rt Hon M. (Fulham)


Faulds, Andrew
MacKenzie, Rt Hon Gregor
Stoddart, David


Fernyhough, Rt Hon E.
Mackintosh, John P.
Stott. Roger


Fitch, Alan (Wigan)
Maclennan, Robert
Strang, Gavin


Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)
McMillan, Tom (Glasgow C)
Summerskill, Hon Dr Shirley


Foot, Rt Hon Michael
Madden, Max
Taylor, Mrs Ann (Bolton W)


Ford, Ben
Magee, Bryan
Thomas, Dafydd (Merioneth)


Forrester, John
Mallalieu, J. P. W.
Thomas, Jeffrey (Abertillery)


Freeson, Rt Hon Reginald
Marks, Kenneth
Thomas, Mike (Newcastle E)


Freud, Clement
Marshall, Dr Edmund (Goole)
Thomas, Ron (Bristol NW)


George, Bruce
Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)
Thompson, George




Thorne, Stan (Preston South)
Wellbeloved, James
Wilson, William (Coventry SE)


Thorpe, Rt Hon Jeremy (N Devon)
Welsh, Andrew
Wise, Mrs Audrey


Tuck, Raphael
White, Frank R. (Bury)
Woodall, Alec


Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne V)
White, James (Pollok)
Wool, Robert


Walker, Terry (Kingswood)
Whitehead, Phillip
Wrigglesworth, Ian


Ward, Michael
Whitlock, William
Young, David (Bolton E)


Watkins, David
Wigley, Dafydd



Watkinson, John
Willey, Rt Hon Frederick
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Watt, Hamish
Wilson, Alexander (Hamilton)
Mr. James Tinn and


Weetch, Ken
Wilson, Gordon (Dundee E)
Mr. James Hamilto[...]

Question accordingly negatived.

The CHAIRMAN then proceeded to put forthwith the Question necessary for the disposal of the Business to be concluded at Seven o'clock.

Question put, That the clause stand part of the Bill:—

The Committee divided: Ayes 184, Noes 199.

Division No. 14]
AYES
[...]p.m.


Allaun, Frank
Hart, Rt Hon Judith
Pendry, Tom


Anderson, Donald
Hatton, Frank
Price, William (Rugby)


Armstrong, Ernest
Hooley, Frank
Radice, Giles


Ashton, Joe
Howell, Rt Hon Denis (B'ham, Sm H)
Rees, Rt Hon Merlyn (Leeds S)


Atkinson, Norman
Huckfield, Les
Roberts, Albert (Normanton)


Barnett, Guy (Greenwich)
Hughes, Rt Hon C. (Anglesey)
Robinson, Geoffrey


Bates, All
Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)
Roderick, Caerwyn


Bean, R. E.
Hughes, Roy (Newport)
Rodgers, George (Chorley)


Bennett, Andrew (Stockport N)
Hunter, Adam
Rooker, J. W.


Bishop, Rt Hon Edward
Irvine, Rt Hon Sir A. (Edge Hill)
Roper, John


Blenkinsop, Arthur
Jackson, Miss Margaret (Lincoln)
Rose, Paul B.


Boardman, H.
Jay, Rt Hon Douglas
Ross, Rt Hon W. (Kilmarnock)


Booth, Rt Hon Albert
Jeger, Mrs Lena
Sandelson, Neville


Boothroyd, Miss Betty
John, Brynmor
Sever, J.


Bottomley, Rt Hon Arthur
Johnson, James (Hull West)
Shaw, Arnold (Ilford South)


Brown, Hugh D. (Provan)
Johnson, Walter (Derby S)
Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert


Buchan, Norman
Jones, Barry (East Flint)
Shore, Rt Hon Peter


Callaghan, Jim (Middleton &amp; P)
Jones, Dan (Burnley)
Silkin, Rt Hon John (Deptford)


Campbell, Ian
Kelley, Richard
Sillars, James


Carmichael, Neil
Kerr, Russell
Silverman, Julius


Carter-Jones, Lewis
Kilfedder, James
Skinner, Dennis


Cartwright, John
Lambie, David
Small, William


Clemitson, Ivor
Lamborn, Harry
Smith, John (N Lanarkshire)


Cocks, Rt Hon Michael (Bristol S)
Lamond, James
Snape, Peter


Coleman, Donald
Latham, Arthur (Paddington)
Spearing, Nigel


Cook, Robin F. (Edin C)
Lestor, Miss Joan (Eton &amp; Slough)
Spriggs, Leslie


Corbett, Robin
Lipton, Marcus
Stallard, A. W.


Craigen, Jim (Maryhill)
Litterick, Tom
Stewart, Rt Hon M. (Fulham)


Crawshaw, Richard
Loyden, Eddie
Stoddart, David


Cronin, John
Lyon, Alexander (York)
Stott, Roger


Cryer, Bob
Lyons, Edward (Bradford W)
Strang, Gavin


Davidson, Arthur
McCartney, Hugh
Summerskill, Hon Dr Shirley


Davies, Bryan (Enfield N)
McDonald, Dr Oonagh
Taylor, Mrs Ann (Bolton W)


Davies, Ifor (Gower)
McElhone, Frank
Thomas, Jeffrey (Abertillery)


Davis, Clinton (Hackney C)
MacFarquhar, Roderick
Thomas, Mike (Newcastle E)


Deakins, Eric
McGuire, Michael (Ince)
Thomas, Ron (Bristol NW)


Dean, Joseph (Leeds West)
MacKenzie, Rt Hon Gregor
Thorne, Stan (Preston South)


Dempsey, James
Mackintosh, John P.
Tinn, James


Doig, Peter
Maclennan, Robert
Tuck, Raphael


Dormand, J. D.
McMillan, Tom (Glasgow C)
Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne V)


Duffy, A. E. P.
Madden, Max
Walker, Terry (Kingswood)


Edge, Geoff
Magee, Bryan
Ward, Michael


Ennals, Rt Hon David
Mallalieu, J. P. W.
Watkins, David


Ewing, Harry (Stirling)
Marks, Kenneth
Watkinson, John


Faulds, Andrew
Marshall, Dr Edmund (Goole)
Weetch, Ken


Fernyhough, Rt Hon E.
Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)
Wellbeloved, James


Fitch, Alan (Wigan)
Maynard, Miss Joan
White, Frank R. (Bury)


Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)
Mikardo, Ian
White, James (Pollok)


Foot, Rt Hon Michael
Millan, Rt Hon Bruce
Whitehead, Phillip


Ford, Ben
Miller, Dr M. S. (E Kilbride)
Whitlock, William


Forrester, John
Mitchell, Austin
Willey, Rt Hon Frederick


Freeson, Rt Hon Reginald
Moonman, Eric
Wilson, Alexander (Hamilton)


George, Bruce
Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)
Wilson, William (Coventry SE)


Gilbert, Dr John
Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)
Wise, Mrs Audrey


Ginsburg, David
Murray, Rt Hon Ronald King
Woodall, Alec


Golding, John
Newens, Stanley
Woof, Robert


Gould, Bryan
O'Halloran, Michael
Wrigglesworth, Ian


Gourlay, Harry
Padley, Walter
Young, David (Bolton E)


Graham, Ted
Palmer, Arthur



Grocott, Bruce
Park, George
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Hamilton, James (Bothwell)
Parker, John
Mr. Thomas Cox and


Hardy, Peter
Parry, Robert
Mr. Joseph Harper


Harrison. Rt Hon Walter
Pavitt, Laurie





NOES


Aitken, Jonathan
Grimond, Rt Hon J.
Prentice, Rt Hon Reg


Alison., Michael
Grist, Ian
Price, David (Eastleigh)


Amery, Rt Hon Julian
Grylls, Michael
Pym, Rt Hon Francis


Arnold, Tom
Hall, Sir John
Raison, Timothy


Atkins, Rt Hon H. (Spelthorne)
Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)
Rathbone, Tim


Awdry, Daniel
Hampson, Dr Keith
Rees-Davies, W. R.


Bain, Mrs. Margaret
Harrison, Col Sir Harwood (Eye)
Reid, George


Banks, Robert
Havers, Rt Hon Sir Michael
Renton, Rt Hon Sir D. (Hunts)


Beith, A. J.
Hawkins, Paul
Renton, Tim (Mid-Sussex)


Bell, Ronald
Hayhoe, Barney
Rhodes James, R.


Benyon, W.
Henderson, Douglas
Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon


Berry, Hon Anthony
Hicks, Robert
Ridsdale, Julian


Biffen, John
Holland, Philip
Rifkind, Malcolm


Biggs-Davison, John
Hordern, Peter
Roberts, Michael (Cardiff NW)


Boscawen, Hon Robert
Howe, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey
Roberts, Wyn (Conway)


Bottomley, Peter
Hunt, David (Wirral)
Ross, Stephen (Isle of Wight)


Boyson, Dr Rhodes (Brent)
Hunt, John (Ravensbourne)
Ross, William (Londonderry)


Braine, Sir Bernard
Hurd, Douglas
Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)


Brittan, Leon
Hutchison, Michael Clark
Rost, Peter (SE Derbyshire)


Brocklebank-Fowler, C.
James, David
Scott, Nicholas


Brooke, Peter
Jenkin, Rt Hon P. (Wanst'd&amp;W'df'd)
Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)


Brotherton, Michael
Jessel, Toby
Shelton, William (Streatham)


Bryan, Sir Paul
Jopling, Michael
Shepherd, Colin


Buchanan-Smith, Alick
Joseph, Rt Hon. Sir Keith
Shersby, Michael


Buck, Antony
Kaberry, Sir Donald
Sims, Roger


Budgen, Nick
Kershaw, Anthony
Skeet, T. H. H.


Bulmer, Esmond
King, Evelyn (South Dorset)
Smith, Timothy John (Ashfield)


Butler, Adam (Bosworth)
King, Tom (Bridgwater)
Speed, Keith


Chalker, Mrs Lynda
Knight, Mrs Jill
Spence, John


Channon, Paul
Knox, David
Sproat, Iain


Churchill, W. S.
Lamont, Norman
Stainton, Keith


Clark, Alan (Plymouth, Sutton)
Latham, Arthur (Paddington)
Stanbrook, Ivor


Clark, William (Croydon S)
Lawrence, Ivan
Stanley, John


Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)
Lawson, Nigel
Steel, Rt Hon David


Clegg, Walter
Le Marchant, Spencer
Steen, Anthony (Wavertree)


Cooke, Robert (Bristol W)
Litterick, Tom
Stewart, Rt Hon Donald


Cope, John
Loveridge, John
Stewart, Ian (Hitchin)


Cormack, Patrick
Luce, Richard
Stokes, John


Costain, A. P.
MacCormick, Iain
Stradling Thomas, J.


Crawford, Douglas
McCrindle, Robert
Tapsell, Peter


Dalyell, Tam
McCusker, H.
Taylor, Teddy (Cathcart)


Dean, Paul (N Somerset)
Macfarlane, Neil
Tebbit, Norman


Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James
MacGregor, John
Temple-Morris, Peter


Drayson, Burnaby
MacKay, Andrew (Stechford)
Thatcher, Rt Hon Margaret


Dunlop, John
Madel, David
Thomas, Dafydd (Merioneth)


Emery, Peter
Marten, Nell
Thompson George


Evans, Gwynfor (Carmarthen)
Mates, Michael
Townsend, Cyril D.


Ewing, Mrs Winifred (Moray)
Mather, Carol
Trotter, Neville


Eyre, Reginald
Maudling, Rt Hon Reginald
van Straubenzee, W. R.


Fairbairn, Nicholas
Mawby, Ray
Viggers, Peter


Fairgrieve, Russell
Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin
Walker, Rt Hon P. (Worcester)


Farr, John
Mayhew, Patrick
Wall, Patrick


Finsberg, Geoffrey
Meyer, Sir Anthony
Warren, Kenneth


Fisher, Sir Nigel
Miller, Hal (Bromsgrove)
Watt, Hamish


Fletcher, Alex (Edinburgh N)
Mills, Peter
Weatherill, Bernard


Fookes, Miss Janet
Molyneaux, James
Wells, John


Fowler, Norman (Sutton C'f'd)
Monro, Hector
Welsh, Andrew


Fox, Marcus
Morrison, Charles (Devizes)
Wiggin, Jerry


Freud, Clement
Morrison, Hon Peter (Chester)
Wigley, Dafydd


Gardner, Edward (S Fylde)
Neave, Airey
Wilson, Gordon (Dundee E)


Gilmour, Sir John (East Fife)
Neubert, Michael
Winterton, Nicholas


Glyn, Dr Alan
Onslow, Cranley
Wood, Rt Hon Richard


Godber, Rt Hon Joseph
Page, Rt Hon R. Graham (Crosby)
Younger, Hon George


Goodhew, Victor
Page, Richard (Workington)



Gorst, John
Penhaligon, David
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Gow, Ian (Eastbourne)
Percival, Ian
Sir George Young and


Gray, Hamish
Peyton, Rt Hon John
Mr Jim Lester.


Griffiths, Eldon
Powell, Rt Hon J. Enoch

Question accordingly negatived.

Mr. Pym: On a point of order, Mr. Godman Irvine. Through you, Mr. Godman Irvine, I put to the Government that they should now tell the Committee where they think they stand on this Bill. I should like to give the Government time to get the Leader of the House to his place. We have had a debate of about three and a half hours on Clause

1. It has been described by the Minister of State as declaratory. We have opposed it. We sought to amend it constructively and we lost in that attempt. However, we have succeeded in knocking out the whole of the first clause, which relates to the central part of the issue.
The Government have sought to maintain throughout their arguments that the proposals in the Bill do not affect the


unity of the United Kingdom. We have said that that is literally not true, and we have been upheld in the Lobbies. It is true to say that what the Government have said on the central issue of whether the Bill affects the unity of the United Kingdom has not been upheld by the Committee.
The Leader of the House should be in his place. He should respond at once to the situation that has now been reached. It is obviously within the competence of the right hon. Gentleman to make a statement and to adjust our business so that after due consideration of where we are now the Government can come forward with another day for debate. The Secretary of State for Scotland shakes his head, but he has no justification for doing that. The right hon. Gentleman cannot brush off a decision of this magnitude.
I note that the Leader of the House has taken his place. I do not wish to be repetitive, but I must remind the right hon. Gentleman of the immense debate that we had on Clause 1 of the Scotland and Wales Bill last January. It went far into the night. Under the guillotine we have debated Clause 1 of this Bill for three and a half hours. It is true that much of the same ground has been covered. At the end of the day the House of Commons has decided to knock out Clause 1, which the Minister of State pretended and maintained was vital to the Bill because it declared that the proposals contained within it do not affect the unity of the United Kingdom. The Committee has decided otherwise.
It is important that the Committee should know where it is. It would be reasonable to draw stumps on this discussion today and for another day to be allotted.

Mr. Foot: Further to that point of order, Mr. Godman Irvine. The right hon. Member for Cambridgeshire (Mr. Pym) talks about drawing stumps. I must remind the right hon. Gentleman that this is not a cricket match. The right hon. Gentleman should not talk about these important matters in such a flippant manner. The right hon. Gentleman has expressed his view, and the Committee has voted its view on whether this declaratory clause should be included in the Bill. That is a perfectly proper matter

for the Committee to reach its conclusion upon. I suggest that the Committee should proceed in the normal manner. The Committee gives its view on the different amendments as they proceed.
7.30 p.m.
We have argued legitimately that there is a case for the inclusion of this declaratory clause. A case has been argued for it and against it. I suggest that the Committee should now proceed according to its normal custom, which is to take into account the vote. There will be a normal Report stage, so I cannot understand why the right hon. Gentleman is getting so excited. We are dealing with the Bill according to our normal custom, and I hope that he will not attempt to upset that.

Mr. Pym: I have been neither flippant nor excited. Throughout the Scotland and Wales Bill debates on Clause 1, which lasted three or four days, and throughout the guillotined debate this afternoon, the Government stoutly maintained that the clause is important, vital and central.

Mr. John Smith: We did not say that.

Mr. Pym: Those precise words may not have been used. I have paraphrased what the Minister and his right hon. Friends have been saying. It is no good the Minister trying to brush this aside. The facts cannot be denied. The Lord President himself defended the clause last year.
When the Committee reaches a decision of this magnitude on a clause which the Government maintain is of the essence of the Bill, because they are claiming that the Bill does not affect the unity of the United Kingdom, and the Committee has decided that it is not prepared to accept those words, it is completely out of proportion to attempt to carry on as though nothing had happened.

Mr. Foot: I am proposing that the Committee should deal with the matter as it would deal with other Bills. I did not say that this clause was not important. I said the opposite. I said that important arguments had been put from each side. The Committee should now continue the discussions according to the decision made by the House about the timetable. We should take account of


the vote, and account will be taken of it when the Bill reaches Report. That is the normal way of dealing with Bills. All that will happen, if the right hon. Member for Cambridgeshire and his hon. Friends insist on taking points of order on the matter, is that they will take up the time allocated for debate. I therefore suggest that the proper course is for them to cool down. This is not the end of the world, and it is certainly not the end of the Bill. We have had a discussion, and a vote has taken place. None of the things that the right hon. Gentleman is suggesting will happen are likely to occur, so I suggest that the Committee gets ahead with the debate. In so far as the right hon. Member or any of his hon. Friends—if he has any control over them—raise points of order, they will only be eating into the debate on the next part of the Bill.

Mr. David Steel: It is a tradition that when there is a Government defeat on a major issue the Opposition spokesman asks the Government what their intentions are. However, we must get it straight from the start of what will prove to be a long Committee stage that the task of the Committee is to improve the Bill. Surely we are not to have these artificial hysterics every time an alteration is made to the wording of the Bill. Those who were present during the debate, as distinct from those who came in for the Division, will have heard the speeches on both sides, making it clear that the inclusion of the clause made no statutory difference. I think that it was generally agreed, therefore, on both sides, that whether the Bill would be better without the clause or with it was a matter of opinion, and not an opinion which had any effect whatever. My colleagues and I took the view that it was better not to have the clause in the Bill. Surely we should now proceed to deal with the next group of amendments.

Dr. Colin Phipps: On a point of order. You will recall, Mr. Godman Irvine, when the Scotland and Wales Bill was debated in the previous Session, that during the initial debates on the Long Title and the equivalent clause to the one we have just discussed, we had a very long debate about the

kinds of amendment which would be accepted by the Chair. May I seek your guidance whether some amendments which deal more specifically with the effect upon England of the terms of the Bill will now be acceptable to the Chair as a result of the defeat of the clause?

Mr. Julian Amery: On a point of order, Mr. Godman Irvine. The vote which the House has just taken means that the Committee considers that the Bill will not preserve the unity of the kingdom, while it is central to the Government's case that it will. Surely the Leader of the House, with all his Cromwellian background, should realise that the only thing to do is to take away this bauble.

Mr. Ogden: On a point of order. I believe that you were in the Chair, Mr. Godman Irvine, at about 10 minutes past six when the hon. Member for Aberdeen, South (Mr. Sproat) was claiming that the Government had a timetable motion and that they were acting as though the Bill was in their pocket. He said that there was, therefore, no point in hon. Members talking to one another in this Committee, but that he would have to talk to his people in Scotland. I suggested that it might not by any means be the case that the Government had the Bill in their pocket. I have given assurances before that I would look at the clause, at the amendment under discussion, at any given time, and at the choice of words in the Bill, and that sometimes I might vote one way and sometimes the other. I take no credit or shame for what happened to the clause tonight, but surely it is no bad thing for parliamentary democracy that the Government should say how important a clause is and that the Committee should then vote it down. I say, win some, lose some. Let us get on to the next business.

Mr. Gordon Wilson: Further to the point of order, Mr. Godman Irvine. It is perfectly clear that the clause does not affect the constitution of the Scottish Assembly or its powers. It is a minor clause. It is remarkable that the Conservative and Unionist Party should have voted tonight against the unity of the United Kingdom and against the authority of Parliament.

The Second Deputy Chairman (Mr. Bryant Godman Irvine): Under the order


which the House agreed on 16th November it was made perfectly clear that the only Member of the House who would be in the position to move a dilatory motion was a member of the Government. It is clear that the Government have no intention of moving such a motion, and I suggest, therefore, that the right course for the Committee to follow would be to move on to Amendment No. 17 and the 18 amendments grouped with it in the provisional selection.

Mr. Eldon Griffiths: I have two points of order, Mr. Godman Irvine, neither of which you have dealt with in your statement. First, the Lord President in his comments on my right hon. Friend's application threatened the Committee that if we were to put to you points of order of real substance the only result would be that the time for debate on the next matters would be truncated. It is a bad point for the Lord President to threaten and to blackmail the Committee in that fashion.
My second point of order is more serious. Central to all the debates on Clause 1 was one question. It was whether the Bill affected the unity of the United Kingdom and the supreme authority of the House. The Committee has now decided by its vote that it does affect the unity of the United Kingdom and the supreme authority of Parliament. Throughout the debate the Government have maintained that the clause is central to their Bill and that the authority of Parliament and the unity of the United Kingdom shall not be touched—

The Second Deputy Chairman: Order. We are all bound by the order of 16th November. The only condition under which any of these matters can arise is that a member of the Government comes forward with a dilatory motion. No such motion has been moved. I therefore call the next amendment.

Clause 2

THE SCOTTISH ASSEMBLY

Mr. John P. Mackintosh: I beg to move Amendment No. 17, in page 1, line 15, after 'Assembly', insert
'the members of which shall be elected by that system of proportional voting specified under this Act'.

The Second Deputy Chairman: With this we may take the following amendments: No. 18, in page 1, line 15, at end insert—
'( ) Each vote in the election in each Assembly constituency shall be a Single Transferable Vote, that is to say a vote—

(a) capable of being given so as to indicate the voter's order of preference for the candidates for election as members for the constituency, and
(b) capable of being transferred to the next choice—
(i) when the vote is not required to give a prior choice the necessary quota of votes, or
(ii) when, owing to the deficiency in the number of votes given for a prior choice, that choice is eliminated from the list of candidates'.

No. 21, in page 1, line 16, leave out
'Subject to subsection (3) below the initial and insert The initial constituency'.

No. 26, in page 1, line 20, leave out three' and insert two'.

No. 27, in page 1, line 20, after initial ', insert constituency '.

No. 28, in page 1, line 21, leave out '125' and insert '111'.

No. 29, in page 1, line 23, leave out two 'and insert one'.

No. 35, in page 2, line 3, after 'The ', insert constituency '.

No. 37, in page 2, line 3, at end insert 'constituency'.

No. 40, in page 2, line 7, at end insert—
'(5) Fifty initial additional members of the Assembly shall be elected by the system of proportional voting set out in Part V of Schedule I to the Act based upon the entitlement which each elector shall have at such election and all subsequent ordinary elections to cast a second vote such votes being referred to in this Act as "party votes".
(6) The number of additional members of the Assembly other than at the first ordinary election of members of the Assembly shall be half the number of constituency members at the ordinary election concerned (rounded up to the nearest whole number).
(7) Notwithstanding any provision of this Act the Assembly may at any time after the first ordinary election review the suitability and fairness of the system of proportional voting prescribed by this Act and may make such regulations amending that system as the Assembly shall prescribe by Bill which Bill shall be subject to the powers of rejection contained in Part VI of Schedule 1 to this Act and pending any such amendment the system of proportional voting prescribed by this Act for the first ordinary election shall apply to succeeding ordinary elections.'.

No. 41, in page 2, line 9, after 'initial' insert 'constituency'.

No. 129, in Schedule 1, page 40, line 12, leave out '125' and insert '111'.

No. 130, in Schedule 1, page 40, line 12, leave out 'three' and insert 'two'.

No. 131, in Schedule 1, page 40, line 14, leave out two 'and insert one '.

No. 132, in Schedule 1, page 40, line 14, leave out constituencies 'and insert constituency'.

No. 133, in Schedule 1, page 41, line 25, at end insert—

'PART V

ELECTION OF ADDITIONAL MEMBERS

15.—(1) No person shall be eligible to be elected as an additional member unless his name was listed as an adopted list candidate at the ordinary election concerned.

(2) No party shall be an eligible party so as to be eligible for allocation of additional member seats to its adopted list candidates under this Schedule unless it secured 5 per cent. or more of the total of all party votes validly cast at the ordinary election concerned.

16. The process of election of additional members shall be as follows:

(1) The number of addition members to be returned at the ordinary election concerned shall be ascertained in accordance with section 2 of this Act.

(2) Priority lists showing the priority as between adopted list candidates shall be democratically drawn up by each party and shall not contain more names than there are additional member seats to be allocated at the ordinary election concerned. A person standing for election as a constituency member may be eligible for inclusion on his party's priority list.

(3) The valid party votes cast at the ordinary election concerned for each eligible party shall be added and the total in each case divided by the sum of the number of candidates of each eligible party returned as constituency member at that election plus one.

(4) The results of the calculations made in sub-paragraph (3) of this paragraph shall be compared and the first person to be elected an additional member shall be the first candidate on the priority list of the eligible party obtaining the highest number as a result of those calculations who is not already a member.

(5) The calculations made in sub-paragraph (3) of this paragraph shall be repeated after adding the additional member elected in accordance with sub-paragraph (4) of this paragraph to the denominator sum of the eligible party of of which he was an adopted candidate.

(6) The results of the calculations made in sub-paragraph (5) of this paragraph shall be compared and the next person to be elected an additional member shall be the first candidate on the priority list of the eligible party

obtaining the highest number as a result of those calculations who is not already a member.

(7) The remaining additional members shall be elected one by one by application of the same system of calculation and election as is prescribed in the preceding sub-paragraphs of this paragraph.

(8) In this paragraph "party" means a political party whose principal objects include the adoption of candidates for election to the Scottish Assembly.

(9) Her Majesty may by Order in Council make regulations for the drawing up and publication of priority lists by parties and the form of ballot paper to be used for ordinary elections to the Assembly under this part of this Act but no recommendation shall be made to Her Majesty in Council to make such an Order until a draft of the Order has been laid before Parliament and approved by a resolution of each House of Parliament.

PART VI

REVISION OF PROPORTIONAL VOTING SYSTEM

17.—(1) If it appears to the Secretary of State that a Bill passed by the Scottish Assembly under the provisions of section 2(6) of this Act would not be in the interests of the United Kingdom as a whole he may lay the Bill before Parliament together with a statement that in his opinion it ought not to be submitted to Her Majesty in Council.

(2) A Bill laid before Parliament under sub-paragraph (1) of this paragraph shall be subject to the same powers of rejection and procedures as a Bill laid before Parliament under subsection (3) of section 36 of this Act.'.

No. 151, in Clause 5, page 3, line 18, at end insert—
'(c) as to the method of voting, and the method of counting and transferring votes.'.

No. 77, in Clause 6, page 3, line 40, after a ', insert constituency '.

No. 80, in Clause 6, page 4, line 9, at end insert—
(5) Subject to subsection (4) of this section where the seat of an additional member of an Assembly is vacated the vacancy shall be filled by the first willing candidate of the party of the vacating member on the relevant party priority list as prepared at the preceding ordinary election under the provisions of Part V of Schedule I to this Act such candidate not already being a member and having indicated his willingness to fill the vacancy as required by the standing orders of the Assembly.'.

Mr. Mackintosh: The object of this series of amendments is to change the electoral system that is proposed for the Assembly from a first-past-the-post system to a proportional representation system. I ask the Government to listen to the debate and to consider the points


that are made in an as objective a way as possible.
The situation is curious, because in the European Bill the Government are proposing proportional representation as their preferred method of election and they are applying a two-line Whip on that issue. But for the Assembly the situation appears to be reversed. I hope that the Government will not whip against a system that they are recommending for European elections. I hope that we shall persuade them to consider this change in the electoral system as carefully as possible. I hope that they will not regard the amendments as wrecking amendments but will accept that they are designed to improve the Bill.
This is an all-party move. It is a move by Scots Members from all political sections whose chief objective is to make the Assembly as satisfactory and as democratically workable as possible. I recall that I moved a similar amendment in January to the first devolution Bill. At that time several hon. Members said that the proposal made the Bill more sensible. They said that it made the whole system more workable but that they were so opposed to setting up an Assembly that anything that made it work more satisfactorily must be thrown out. They said that they wanted to make the Bill look as ridiculous and as dangerous as possible.
In spite of what has happened to the last clause, it looks as though the Government will get the Bill. They achieved large majorities on Second Reading and on the guillotine motion. So we must achieve the best system possible and not try to make the Bill appear to be ridiculous and dangerous, because it looks as though the Assembly will come into existence by 1979.
I hope that those who are opposed to the principle of devolution will consider what is the best method of electing the Assembly, since we are to have it. I know that some hon. Members who are opposed to some developments in Northern Ireland supported proportional representation there because of the specific merits of the situation and because they believed it would work well.
7.45 p.m.
Since we are likely to have an Assembly we must address ourselves to

the political situation in Scotland. The core of the case for proportional representation is that the political situation in Scotland is not the same as it is in the United Kingdom. In the 1950s and 1960s we had in the United Kingdom a two-party system in which the Labour and Conservative Parties together gathered 95 to 97 per cent. of the votes cast. The operation of the first-past-the-post system was roughly proportional and just. It was seen to be so by the people in the country and they accepted the outcome of the elections.
The difficulty is that when there is a political system, as there is in Scotland, where three major parties run neck and neck and two minor parties run behind, any one of the major parties, by putting its nose only slightly ahead could reverse the situation and scoop an absolute majority in the Assembly on the strength of an increase of 2 or 3 per cent. in its popular vote.
I know that Clause 4 provides a procedure by which the Assembly may be dissolved. But that procedure is a safety valve and almost certainly the Assembly will last for its full four-year period. We must consider that if one party achieves 35 or 36 per cent. of the vote it will get 57 per cent. of the seats and that a Scottish Executive could govern Scotland on the basis of just over one third of the popular vote for four years.
I can think of no more serious damage that we could do to an Assembly than to tie this undemocratic can around its neck. Such a situation would encourage people to say that the Assembly did not represent them. They would say that the Executive had 65 per cent. of the popular vote against it and that in those circumstances they need not take notice of it.
Those chosen to act as the Government should have 50 per cent. of the votes cast behind them. If that happened, it would be a great asset to the Assembly. It would be a more satisfactory form of government, it would be more likely to last and to make a contribution to the good government of Scotland.
Should people believe that I am exaggerating I remind hon. Members of what happened at the last General Election. At the last election, in October 1974, the


Labour Party was the largest party with 36 per cent. of the votes. Yet it achieved 58 per cent. of the Scottish seats. If that were repeated in the Assembly the Labour Party would have a clear, absolute and unshakable majority for four years on the basis of 36 per cent. of the votes cast.
At the last General Election the Scottish National Party got 30 per cent. of the votes and a mere 15 per cent. of the seats. The Conservative Party polled 26 per cent. of the votes and got 23 per cent. of the seats. If the same method is used, one party could govern Scotland on the basis of 36 per cent. of the votes cast for a full four-year period. That is not a satisfactory way of running the Assembly. The amendment proposes a proportional representation system of election which would remove the difficulty.
I shall explain the details of the amendments. First, they provide an interim measure. The proposal is for the first election only. The object is that if there are aspects of the electoral system which the Assembly finds do not work satisfactorily, it can propose changes, subject to the approval of this House. Secondly, the amendments are designed so that no delay is involved. There would be no question of a delay in the timetable.
The meat of the amendments is that the Assembly should consist of the same number of elected members, that is 150. But, instead of the Government system of having three members for some of the existing Westminster constituencies and two for others, this proposal is that there should be two members for the large constituencies and one for the smaller constituencies. That would produce 100 members who would be directly elected to the Assembly. The remaining 50 would be added on a proportional system so that the end result would produce members of the Assembly who would be closer, proportionally, to the votes cast in Scotland.

Mr. Powell: I may be anticipating the hon. Gentleman, but may I ask whether the latter category of Members should, in his view, be paid less since they would have less to do because they would have no constituencies?

Mr. Mackintosh: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman. May I come to that point later? I hope to explain these matters in detail. As the right hon. Gentleman knows, this is the West German added-Member system, which has worked there for the past 30 years. These problems have been faced and tackled. The point about this is that the 50 Members would be divided so as to produce a proportional result.
I wish to deal with a few details before I come to the point raised by the right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell). The position of the 50 added Members is crucial in the argument about whether this is a feasible system. Many hon. Members raised the point when we debated this in January. In this amendment we are proposing two votes, which is a change from the amendment proposed in January.
The point is that members of the public going into the polling booth would have two votes, one for the candidates for the constituency and the second for a party list, which would also be printed on the ballot paper. I know that we are not supposed to wave bits of paper around in the Chamber but there would be a set of names on one side of the ballot paper and a series of lists on the other, as I have here, and as is used in the German system. In any constituency the elector will cast one vote for the preferred candidate for that constituency and the other for a Labour, Liberal, Conservative, or whatever other party is listed on the ballot paper. There would be six or eight names at the top of each party list.
This is roughly the same system as the Government are proposing for the European elections, with this great improvement, that in this case the elector would have a choice, if he wished to exercise it, between the member for the constituency and his overall party affiliation. The point is that there are many constituencies where, because of tactical voting, electors may prefer to cast their vote for someone whom they respect and want for that constituency but who does not represent their normal party allegiance. Let us take the right hon. Member for Roxburgh, Selkirk and Peebles (Mr. Steel) as an example. He is not present, but it is fair to mention him because I am simply talking about his electoral position.
In Roxburgh, Selkirk and Peebles in days gone by, when my hon. Friend the Member for West Lothian (Mr. Dalyell) stood as a candidate, there were 10,000 or more Labour voters in that constituency. Now the Labour vote is about 2,000 to 2,500. It is not beyond the wit of man to calculate that many Labour supporters and Conservative supporters vote for the right hon. Member who leads the Liberal Party. If they did not have two votes they might say "We would prefer that gentleman to represent us in this constituency, but we do not want that vote to add up on any proportional basis towards a Liberal list."
This method of voting allows people to vote for the candidate they prefer for the constituency but to put their party vote on the party list from which they want the additional Members to be added. This means that in those constituencies where the third party is hopelessly out and the elector cannot use his votes in any meaningful way, those votes can be used for the party to get additional Members into the Assembly and to make up the proportion properly.

Mr. Dalyell: Who will draw up the Labour list? Who will draw up the Conservative list and who will draw up the Scottish Labour Party list?

Mr. Mackintosh: My hon. Friend is hurrying me through my explanation. The second point, to which I was coming having described the electoral system, is that the list system is drawn up by the respective parties. This is the normal procedure in countries that have a list system. It is the procedure proposed for the European Bill. I have doubts about this in the sense that one worries about the kind of person the official party may choose. There are other points about this just as important. We have to look at where the system has worked in practice.
Because the top names on the list are printed on the ballot paper there is a great attempt to get a list on which at least the top dozen names are impressive—people who will command public support. I have heard some say, in criticism of the list system, that the parties will simply put on hacks, they will put on the party stalwarts of no ability, with no reputation except that of total obedience to the party machine.
If any party went forward to the Assembly election with that kind of list it would stand condemned by the Press, public and electors. One thing about which the public would be worried is the idea that the Assembly might be packed with unsuitable or incapable people. That kind of tendency on the part of the official party lists would be the cause of serious damage to a party's electoral fortunes.
One of the curious things about the argument is that sometimes exactly the reverse case is put. People come along and say that there will appear curious people with famous names, pop artists, people who are known on television, who are constantly in the public eye and who are put on to the list to add glamour and draw attention. Anyone who goes at the top of the list and whose name is in that way publicised is likely to be chosen on the added-Member system. Such people would have to be prepared to serve for four years in the Assembly at a level of pay which we shall discuss in a moment. They would have to be prepared to serve and give of their time.
One of the great attractions about this is the possibility of getting people to serve in the Assembly who are public figures but who may not have put in the groundwork in an area which would enable them to win a local nomination with the particular conditions there. One of the greatest problems facing us is that we shall have to find 150 people of considerable capacity to run this Assembly. The problem will be getting men and women of quality to do this job, who will find it exciting and challenging.
All hon. Members know that the numbers of people who have not thought about coming to Westminster, particularly in Scotland, are considerable. These are people who have played a part in our public life, who have political affiliations, whose position is known but who are not in a position, were elections to be called, to put themselves before a local committee because they have not done the grass-roots canvassing, the fetes, the detailed, often tedious work necessary to be done by people in local parties. I know that many people will say "If they haven't done that, don't have them," but there are some whom we ought to have in the Assembly, whose


rôle in Scottish public life has been considerable, people whose names would be an enhancement to the list.
One of the attractions is that the system allows parties to get one or two people of this kind on to their list whom they may otherwise not be able to persuade a local constituency to take, or who might themselves be unable to do that kind of work.

Mr. Jim Craigen: I presume that these superstars might well be involved in some territorial work, either of their own volition or because the people in a particular area wanted to involve them in a local problem. Does this mean that there would be a clash with the territorial interests of the constituency Members?

Mr. Mackintosh: The position is that the normal convention would apply, that they could not take up complaints and grievances and that Ministers would deal with the constituency Member.
Hon. Members must realise that as the Bill is drafted there is not one Member per constituency but two, and in some cases three. The Scottish Assembly will already have moved on to the system where it is not clear who precisely is the constituency Member. There will be competition between Members. Hon. Members know perfectly well that in the United States a state is represented by two senators and several Members of the House of Representatives. A little bit of competition between elected Members to see who gives the best service is highly satisfactory.

Sir John Gilmour: Is it not true, whether or not we like the Bill, that after the first election the constituencies will be split, so that what the hon. Gentleman is saying will not have any further relevance?

Mr. Mackintosh: It all depends on what the system the Assemby decides upon for the second and subsequent elections. The idea of two Members for a constituency is not a bad thing. I cannot see any great objection to it in democratic terms. The answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Maryhill (Mr. Craigen) is clear. The list Members would not be attached to any con

stituency. They would not have any responsibility of that kind. If they cared to concern themselves it would be with general matters such as transport, the Highlands, economic development, housing and matters of that kind.

Mrs. Jill Knight: I am following the hon. Gentleman with great care, but there is something I cannot yet understand. How could a Member of the Assembly cope with the large number of people for whom he would be responsible, even though he may have someone else to help? How could it be said, as we say here, that his responsibility would be to a certain set number, about 60,000 electors? How could any person manage double that amount?

8.0 p.m.

Mr. Mackintosh: I am afraid that the hon. Lady's mathematics are slipping. If there are two Members per parliamentary constituency, one does not have double the amount but a half. But perhaps I have misunderstood her.

Mrs. Knight: Surely the point is, looking at it in our own context, that if two constituencies were thrown together, any person in those two constituencies would be able to approach both or either Member.

Mr. Mackintosh: The hon. Lady misunderstands the Bill. There is no throwing together of constituencies. There are two Members per single constituency. In other words, there are more Members per constituency than at present. The seats when redrawn will be smaller, but on the first election there will be two or three Members for each Westminster constituency.
My hon. Friend the Member for Mary-hill raised the question of the specific territorial responsibility of list Members. They would not have such responsibility. They would be added Members and would concern themselves with issues of policy. They would not deal with specific issues in the constituencies as against constituency Members.
The right hon. Member for Down, South raised a broader point to do with parliamentary pay and whether there would not be first and second-class Members in practice in certain terms. I apologise for spending some time on these


points. These are detailed matters which need elucidating. I am not surprised if some hon. Members, like the hon. Member for Birmingham, Edgbaston (Mrs. Knight), find them difficult, because we have not been able to publicise them since we went so quickly into Committee following Second Reading. We have not had time to brief hon. Members.
What would have happened if this electoral system had been applied in October 1974 in Scotland for a Scottish Assembly? Given the existing intentions and votes of the electorate, as far as we can determine the result would have been 58 Labour Members, 45 Members from the Scottish National Party, 36 Conservatives, and 11 Liberals for the 150 seats. The end result in seats would have been at the most 2 per cent. or 2½ per cent. out of proportion to the votes cast for those parties in Scotland as a whole.

Mr. Buchan: In that event, how could a Government conceivably have been formed? One could have had, for example, a Labour-Liberal pact outvoted by the Conservatives and the SNP. The same situation would have applied to a Labour-SNP pact or perhaps even to a Labour-Conservative pact. How could this system have worked in achieving the aims of any parties?

Mr. Mackintosh: My hon. Friend raised the same point in the last debate on this matter, and I shall answer it, even if not to his satisfaction. It is a very important point and I shall come to it.
I want to look now at the specific objections to the system raised here and in other countries where it has been applied and has worked and to consider their experience.

Mr. Jeremy Thorpe: When the hon. Gentleman does deal with the point raised by the hon. Member for Renfrewshire, West (Mr. Buchan), will he perhaps consider that the alternative is to have a situation such as that in Quebec? In the election there four parties competed and the nationalist party, with two-fifths of the votes, got two-thirds of the seats. It governs with a majority in the Quebec Parliament but it frustrates the wishes of the majority.

Mr. Mackintosh: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for pointing that

out. Government by a party with 70 per cent. of the seats based on 41 per cent. of the votes, as is the case in Quebec, means a crisis of democracy in a first-past-the-post system, because it does not represent the majority of the people.
The fear of the right hon. Member for Down, South is that, with a list system, there are two different classes of Member. This matter has been raised in countries which have such a system. I do not know how such a situation would settle down when worked in Scotland, but where it has been worked the tendency is for the constituency Members to have higher prestige and for there to be a desire on the part of the list Members to get themselves eventually elected for constituencies.
Secondly, there is the advantage that the list system has allowed people to come in who may not have territorial bases but who have considerable public standing and reputation and who have a great deal to contribute to the work of the Assembly, which has been much appreciated. I have not had the impression that, for example, in the Bundestag there is any distinction in practice between the two kinds of Member, except that the list Members like to prove that they can be elected by a constituency and seek to be so.
I do not think that anyone would recognise differences of remuneration or powers, and I am sure that in most cases the list Members would work as hard as the constituency Members. But they could devote themselves to other aspects of work in addition to the normal duties of a Member of the Assembly. We know that in this House some Members do a great deal more constituency work than others. There are others who devote themselves largely to national or international issues and may do rather less constituency work. Some, indeed, do neither, while some do both—and I am not being invidious here. We have these varieties.
The idea that there are droves of people who not only do constituency work but have so much time left that they can do everything else as well is a mistake, and the prospect of having some Members free of constituency chores is important and helpful in the running of the Assembly. One of the objectives of this whole exercise is to find within the Scottish population—they are there—150


people of talent and ability sufficient to control the Civil Service, to give leadership to the people and to make them feel that the Assembly works well.
I shall find an echo in my hon. Friend the Member for West Lothian in saying that if this Assembly turns out not to be a democratic success, we cannot go back to square one. What we should then come to is unknown and unclear. This is an experiment in regional or national democracy within a multinational State. If it does not work, it will be bad for all of us. It will not be a victory for the "pros" or a defeat for the "antis" orvice versa. We are talking of an Assembly which is to come into operation, and we have to be careful about how we get the right people into it and how it will operate.
I am not attacking any political party in pointing out that a number of the political parties in Scotland are thin on the ground in talent. None of them could quickly say "We can immediately produce 150 people of sterling, outstanding quality." I am not denigrating anyone. It is a fact. One of the helpful features of the list system is to try to meet such objection.
I turn now to the deeper, longer term objection posed by my hon. Friend the Member for Renfrewshire, West (Mr. Buchan). He says, in effect, that if in the Assembly there is no party with an absolute majority, the result will inevitably be a coalition or a one-party Government with the assent of another party, though not perhaps stipulated in any formal pact—as we have seen, one party can support the Government of another party without such a formal pact. Surely that would be a great source of strength to the Assembly. It would prevent a minority party in terms of popular support from trying, as a Government, to put through the Assembly extreme policies unacceptable to the majority of the electorate.
Having several parties is a guarantee, particularly within a fixed-life Assembly, that if one party, in Government with the support of another, is not fulfilling its objectives, is not governing well and is losing support, the minor party which has been supporting it can transfer its support to another party, thereby produc-

ing a situation in which moderate government can continue.
All I can say to my hon. Friend is that there are only two choices in the problem that he poses. One is strong government, as he alleges, by a party with minority support in the community but an absolute majority in the Assembly. I suggest that that does not remain strong government. It becomes subject to such public criticism that it cannot go on, and it is far better in those circumstances to have a Government who may not represent the pure milk of doctrine of party A, B or C, but who have behind them the majority support of the community. This is the safe method of proceeding.
In the European Assembly Elections Bill there is a proposal for proportional representation. The Government, for various reasons, say that they favour it for European elections, and on Thursday night they will be applying a two-line Whip for this proposal. I hope that the Government will give careful consideration to the amendments because in my view the case for proportional representation in Scotland is far stronger than the case for it in Europe.
I know that some of my hon. Friends and some Conservative Members have another fear in addition to that voiced by my hon. Friend. They fear that if proportional representation really succeeds in Scotland it will be very hard to stop it coming to Westminster and that will be the thin end of the wedge. They do not want it here, even though they may think it might work perfectly well in a Scottish Assembly.
The position is quite simple. The political system in Scotland is different from that in the United Kingdom. As long as we have two parties dominant in the United Kingdom, there is some justice in our present electoral system and some popular support for the results of it. If we had a General Election in the United Kingdom which produced three parties running neck and neck, with 33 per cent. of the vote each, the case would be quite different, and I think that hon. Members would recognise that it would then be quite different.

Mr. Dalyell: Will not my hon. Friend also concede that the position is different in Scotland from that in Europe because


in Scotland one of the major parties, unless there were a Labour-Tory coalition, would almost certainly be at one stage or another a party which is absolutely dedicated to the disruption and break-up of the British State? May I gently say to my hon. Friend that anyone who gets into an electoral coalitionary bed with the SNP had better realise the outcome. The demand of the SNP will be for just one thing—a separate State. That will be the price for a coalition with the SNP.

Mr. Mackintosh: My hon. Friend's arguments actually lead to exactly the opposite conclusion. If he has this phobia about the SNP and he votes against proportional representation, he will then have to face this fact. If there had been a General Election on this fixed-term system, under which the dates of elections cannot be changed, there could have been an SNP majority in the Assembly on the basis of 35 per cent. of the popular vote. Which does he prefer and think safer in the long run? He can have a coalition system, by which there will be enough votes in the Assembly to defeat extreme measures by any party from whichever source, including the source that he fears so much. I suggest to him that that is a far safer position than having a party with an absolute majority with the particular programme—

Mr. Dalyell: It is not a question of phobias but of believing that when the question is put to the Scottish people there will be every possibility not of an SNP ginger group but of an SNP Government. The Scottish electors may draw their own conclusions on that.

Mr. Mackintosh: My hon. Friend gets more and more obscure. I have tried to follow his views in his book, which I can recommend to hon. Members. It is wonderful bedside reading—the greatest cure for insomnia that I have come across. It does the job because, like my hon. Friend's arguments, it goes round in circles. Anyone who seriously takes my hon. Friend's view can do nothing but support the amendment.
I was referring earlier to the possibility of proportional representation coming into Westminster and suggesting that the Scottish political situation is quite differ

ent from that in Westminster. It is one which would make a lottery of an election on the first-past-the-post system. Any of the three major parties which got its nose 2 or 3 per cent. ahead could scoop the pool, and that is not the way in which to run a democratic system.
When people suggest that surely this is the thin end of the wedge for elections to Westminster, my answer is that the political system here is quite different. The case here is not nearly so strong for a proportional system of this kind.
We do not wish necessarily in the Scottish Assembly to create a little carbon copy of Westminster. We may well want to run the Assembly in a different fashion with different rules. I believe that we can do better.
I know that it is the current fashion when we talk of different systems of democracy and Government for hon. Members to say "Ho, ho, ho." I remember going to the Smoking Room where a Conservative Member asked me what I had been doing. I said that I had been to the Bundestag to study the system there. He said "Good God—to study what they do in Germany? Ho, ho, ho."
8.15 p.m.
That general approach is positively laughable. There are still people who cannot believe that other countries may have devised a democratic electoral system which meets the needs of a three or four-party system more effectively than ours. We have got to abandon this sort of outlook.
I am ashamed of the powerlessness of this House and of its lack of control of the Executive, and I want to see an effective Scottish Assembly set up. I wish that all Governments were held under tighter control by the House of Commons, and I wish to see an Assembly set up which really reflects the views of the people of Scotland and which holds the Executive accountable and responsible in a reasonable manner.

Mr. J. Grimond: I have a very great deal of sympathy with what the hon. Member for Berwick and East Lothian (Mr. Mackintosh) has said, and no one is more conscious than I am of the unfairness


of the present system and of the attractions of the system which he has proposed. But I must also declare that I am rather deeply attached to the constituency system as well.
I think it is a good feature of the House of Commons that we come here elected directly to represent a particular constituency. With all its troubles and all its faults and muddle, I believe that that basis of our system of democracy in this country is extremely important. It is a good thing that people who wish to take part in the work of the House of Commons should have to submit themselves at a public meeting—even if no one comes—to cross-examination by a mixed bag of people in a particular place. Furthermore, it is right that people should know who their Member is and who to go to with their complaints. From my point of view, at any rate, complaints are extremely important.
The House of Commons is also traditionally a check upon the Executive. It does not exist either to support Governments or to fight them. We are able to come here and speak about the grievances of our constituents. We are able to say where the shoe pinches. We are able to tell the Government to go away and put matters right. Therefore, while I am very much aware of the unfairness of the present system, I am also very much aware of the basic simplicity and excellence of the British democratic system.
As I understand it, the hon. Gentleman would give 100 seats of the Scottish Assembly to the party. [HON. MEMBERS: "Fifty."] I do not know who is to choose these Members. Whether it is 50 or 100 it does not alter my argument. Fifty Members are to be chosen by the parties. This is at a time when the parties less and less represent anything very much in the country. It is a feature of British organisations to demand what is in their interests. The hon. Gentleman also says—and here I agree with him—that there is probably in Scotland a pool of people who would contribute very greatly to the Assembly. But I rather dissent from the view that there are many great men who should not sully their hands by presenting themselves as candidates before the electorate but should be swept into

office by the extreme credibility of their virtue and excellence.

Mr. Mackintosh: The right hon. Gentleman slightly misses my point. I think he has obviously made the point many times that there are Liberal candidates who stand for single constituencies all over the country in Scotland whose votes are wasted. The Members would be swept in not by their credibility but by the unused votes of Liberal candidates who ran third and fourth in 60 out of the 71 constituencies which did not elect Liberals. The right hon. Gentleman also knows that among the candidates for his own party there are some men who are not great men but are not bad.

Mr. Grimond: As we would expect from a part-time professor of politics at the University of Edinburgh, the hon. Gentleman has moved on to a different point.
I am not clear about one thing. Suppose by any mischance the electors of Berwick and East Lothian were to reject him—it is a possibility that is difficult to contemplate, but they might—would the votes cast for the hon. Gentleman then go to someone on the list? I should like the hon. Gentleman to say at some stage whether that is so. In that situation the votes cast for the hon. Gentleman would not assist in electing him at all but would be added to someone's name on a list—someone of whom the electorate had never heard.
I am not wholly against that, but I should like to be clear just what is being proposed. Is it the case that the Labour votes, let alone the Liberal votes, of Berwick and East Lothian would be added to someone else of whom the electorate had never heard but who had been put on the list by the Labour Party?

Mr. Mackintosh: The electors will have two votes in their constituency. They will be able to vote for the candidate of their choice, and those votes do not go to someone on the list. They are wasted. The electors also have a second vote with regard to the party list. That is the list containing leading members of the party whom the party has chosen. That vote is the electors' party preference and that is the one which adds up to the people whose names are on the ballot paper or on the list.

Mr. Grimond: Therefore the candidate for the constituency is simply wiped out and the candidate on the list gets in on the second vote in a constituency which, say, the Labour Party did not win. I see that and it may well be that it is the best we can do.

Mr. Alexander Fletcher: Might I suggest that the right hon. Gentleman should ask the hon. Member for Berwick and East Lothian (Mr. Mackintosh) whether it is not a fact that if he were to lose his seat he could still find a place on the list and still remain a Member of Parliament by coming in by that method even though he had been rejected by his constituents?

Mr. Grimond: That is the point I was coming to. It could be an important part of the hon. Gentleman's proposition. All I am saying is that ideally people who have the courage to stand for a constituency and are rejected should not be thrown aside simply by the use of the second vote. That is a possibility.
There is a guillotine, and I want to sit down. I now understand the hon. Gentleman's proposal, for better or for worse. There is a lot to be said for it. But I am worried that we should at some level preserve the contact between the constituency and the Member. To that extent I agree with part of the hon. Gentleman's proposition.
Of course, it is particularly important for me. The difficulty in my part of the world is that if we had the normal system of PR we would have a constituency stretching from Perth to the Muckle Flugga. That is a long way to get in the requisite number of Members and it would divorce the Member from the constituency.
I welcome the hon. Gentleman's attempt to ride two horses at once—to keep the contact between the Member and the constituency and at the same time to give some fairness to the electoral result. I hope that the hon. Gentleman might be willing to adjust his proposal so that the candidate for the constituency might still get in on the list.

Mr. Mackintosh: I pointed out that that was entirely possible. My proposal does not need to be altered in any way.

People who are candidates for the constituency would also be on the list. It is not conceivable, but suppose the electory of Orkney and Shetland rejected the right hon. Gentleman, there might well be 30,000 electors throughout Scotland who would still like to have the right hon. Gentleman as a Member.

Mr. Thorpe: Before my right hon. Friend sits down, may I point out that there is a precedent. The Labour Party, when selecting its representatives to the European Parliament, has a form of primary election. There is no reason why there should not be a form of primary election to decide who is on the party list. That would meet the point.

Mr. Dalyell: It may seem odd to a lot of people that while parts of Britain are burning—[Interruption.]—we have a firemen's dispute—we are discussing the problem of representation of Perth and Muckle Flugga.
I shall be brief. I am concerned not with the theory or with the merits and demerits of PR as such but rather with the likely consequences in the Scottish context. It is unlikely that any of the four or five parties would have an overall majority. It is further unlikely that any party plus the Liberals would have an overall majority and it is extremely unlikely over the long term that the Liberals plus one other party would have a majority.
Therefore, what would be the result? Two out of three parties—Labour, Tory or SNP—would have to go into coalition to form a Scottish Administration. It would be very unlikely to be able to form a Scottish Administration without an agreement involving two out of the three parties—Labour, Tory or SNP. That is the reality of the situation.
Let us take first a Labour-Tory coalition. That might be a little difficult to put it mildly, whereas it might be possible that there could be a measure of agreement between my hon. Friend the Member for Berwick and East Lothian (Mr. Mackintosh) and the hon. Member for Edinburgh, Pentlands (Mr. Rifkind) on matters of constitutional reform, for instance.
But what we are dealing with here is a Labour-Tory coalition Government in Scotland. It might be a great deal more difficult, for instance, to have a situation


where the Administration is looking to my hon. Friend the Member for West Stirlingshire (Mr. Canavan) and the hon. Member for Perth and East Perthshire (Mr. Crawford) to sustain an agreed economic policy. My hon. Friend the Member for Bothwell (Mr. Hamilton) smiles. I put it to him that Transport House might have a lot to say about a Labour-Tory coalition in the Scottish Assembly and, indeed, so might Conservative Central Office.

Mr. Russell Johnston: Does not the hon. Gentleman think that another group who ought to have some say in the matter is the people of Scotland? If the electors of Scotland wish to produce that sort of result surely it is the politician's job to sort it out and to produce an effective Administration, because that is the pattern which the electors seek?

Mr. Dalyell: It is up to the politicians to sort it out. But it would be difficult to sort out a Labour-Tory coalition in the government of Scotland given our very deep differences of opinion on Treasury economic policy and all sorts of other matters. That is the difficulty.
The other alternative, however, is a little less fanciful. It is either a Tory-SNP coalition or a Labour-SNP coalition. In such circumstances, what would the SNP Members do? I hasten to say that it is not like any coalition or agreement which might take place, for instance, in the Glasgow Corporation or any other authority. That is possible. It is possible for SNP groups to have some kind of formal or informal grouping with another party in a local authority. But we are not talking about a local authority. We are talking about a subordinate Parliament.
In my view, in such a situation, the SNP Members would have just one simple demand. They would not be over-bothered about the commitment to a Left or Right-inclined economic policy. They would let their partners have their way on that. If it was an SNP-Tory coalition, they would say "Let us have a laissez-faire economic policy. We are divided right across the spectrum, but we will let you have your way on that." Equally, if it was an SNP-Labour coalition they would say "We will go along with a Left-inclined economic

policy, if that is your wish." But in both cases they would ask for something in return. They would seek to extract a commitment for more powers for a Scottish Government. That, inevitably, would be the quid pro quo. I do not think that the hon. Member for Dundee, East (Mr. Wilson), who has doubtless thought about these matters, would deny that. It would be wholly natural and understandable.
I have no phobia about the SNP. I try to be a little realistic. I do not regard members of the SNP as enemies in any personal sense. But I try to think out what the scenario would be. It cannot be denied that their one demand would be for more powers for a Scottish Government.

Mr. Craigen: Is not this just another argument against having an Assembly, rather than an argument against a proportional representation or first-past-the-post system? There is no guarantee in this great scenario that a first-past-the-post system necessarily will result in any one party having a majority.

8.30 p.m.

Mr. Dalyell: My hon. Friend is certainly on a good point. This is an argument against having an Assembly at all. But I say that an Assembly with a PR system is an even faster escalator to separation than an Assembly without PR. PR will make it quicker and more certain that in fewer years and months we shall get a separate Scottish State.

Mr. Tim Rathbone: I suggest that the opposite would be the case and that the first-past-the-post system could lead, hypothetically but not impossibly, to a Scottish Assembly which was inhabited entirely by SNP Members. If that was the case, that step would be taken both more quickly and to further lengths than the hon. Gentleman is suggesting.

Mr. Dalyell: That is possible. I for one have always accepted the position. But I would try to make it clear beforehand that people were voting for a separate Government. If, however, the majority of Scots voted for the SNP—[HON. MEMBERS: "Minority."] No. I am answering the hon. Gentleman's question. If a majority of Scots voted for the SNP, it would be a separate State. There is no question about that.

Mr. Rathbone: I may not have emphasised sufficiently the underlying weakness of that answer, because it does not require a majority of Scots to make not a majority but a totality of SNP Members in a Scottish Assembly. It is possible with a first-past-the-post system for there to be a total inhabitation of a Scottish Assembly by SNP Members based on a minority of the Scottish population.

Mr. Dalyell: If it was first past the post. But the issue becomes much clearer on a proportional system. It is as certain as anything can be that it would fall roughly quarter, quarter and quarter, with possibly the remaining quarter made up of Liberals, the hon. Member for South Ayrshire (Mr. Sillars) and others. So, in my view, PR would accelerate rather than decelerate Scotland on the motorway to a separate State.

Mr. Powell: Will the hon. Member accept, as confirmation of the correctness of his analysis, the fact that proportional representation was imposed upon Northern Ireland for the purpose of electing the Assembly under the Act of 1973 with the actual intention that it should give a majority power to the separatist minority?

Mr. Dalyell: I have interrupted the right hon. Gentleman many times, and I would simply confirm, as I am sure is the case, that what he says is accurate and to the point on this matter.

Mr. Russell Johnston: It is not accurate.

Mr. Gordon Wilson: It is rubbish.

Mr. Dalyell: I give way to the hon. Member for Inverness (Mr. Johnston).

Mr. Russell Johnston: I was simply saying that what the right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell) said in regard to the intentions of the Government in introducing proportional representation, which was that the minority would be given a position of control, is quite wrong. It was introduced in order to give the minority a fair representation.

Mr. Dalyell: Doubtless the hon. Gentleman will explain that in his own speech.
I simply end by saying that in my opinion, in a proportional representation situation, the SNP would almost certainly be partners in a coalition. Given that coalition situation, those who sup with the SNP had better use a very long spoon indeed, because the truth is that once there is that coalition, we are on the road to a separate State.

Sir John Gilmour: I find this debate very difficult because it seems to me that we are complicating two issues at the same time. If we knew exactly what the size of the Scottish Assembly was to be, it might make it easier for us to make up our minds whether we felt that there was a reason for having a system of proportional representation. When we discussed this matter at the beginning of this year, I felt very strongly that it was quite wrong to have a situation in which one Member represented a constituency such as mine and that constituency sent two to a Scottish Assembly, so that in effect three people would be doing the work which is being done by one at present.
As I understand the Government's thinking, as a result of our discussions the last time, they feel that if we had an Assembly with 71 Members we would be bound to arrive at a situation in which no one had a majority and therefore one could not achieve a proper running of that Assembly. Therefore, the Government argue that we must have a bigger Assembly in order to try to put the matter right.
I wonder whether we are helping our constituents at all if we say to them that in one election they may vote for somebody first past the post, but the next week, when they go to another sort of election, they must vote in a different way. The House now has two propositions before it, one for some measure of proportional representation for this Bill and another, put forward by the Government, for some form of proportional representation for the European Assembly.
We shall also arrive at a situation in which we shall have our electors voting at intervals—not specified, but up to five years in a parliamentary election. They have regional elections and district elections at two-year intervals. They are also to have elections for the European Assembly and for a Scottish Assembly.

Mr. Powell: The Scots are lucky not to have a border poll as well.

Sir J. Gilmour: The right hon. Gentleman may be correct in that. All I am saying is that it is all very well for us in the House of Commons to say "This is what you ought to do in this way, and this is what you ought to do in another way." What I am worried about is the ordinary person who lives in Auchtermuchty or Pittenweem, or wherever it may be, who goes about his ordinary business of fishing or farming, or whatever it may be, and says, "How on earth do you people in Westminster tell us that in one election we must vote in a proportional representation way and in another election we must vote first past the post?" I do not believe that my constituents can understand this because it does not make it common sense at all.
Therefore, I hope that the House will look at this, not on the basis of what pleases us—we can suit ourselves over so many things—but on the basis of getting a system which will enable the average elector in all the Scottish constituencies to make up his mind in a commonsense way. We should do this without holding one election in one way and another in another way.
Also I hope that we shall produce a system whereby elections are at four or five different times over a period of three or four years. We are doing our electors a great disservice and the trouble stems from the fact that the Government have started with this Bill before making up their minds about the system for election of this Parliament at Westminster.

Mr. Alick Buchanan-Smith: Would my hon. Friend agree that one of the best services we could do our constituents is to make sure that their wishes of party representation are properly reflected in the Assembly to which the election takes place?

The First Deputy Chairman (Sir Myer Galpern): Order. I had difficulty in recognising who was addressing the Chamber because the hon. Member turned away.

Sir J. Gilmour: Personally I would favour an Assembly for 71 Members, but I have put my name to an amendment grouped with those we are discussing which would make it slightly larger. I

did this because it seems to me that if we are to have a Scottish Assembly we must devise a system under which the electors understand what they are doing. I do not believe that we do our constituents a service by having a system under which a certain number of members are elected on a first-past-the-post basis and another 50 by proportional representation. That will not make things easier for our constituents to understand. Therefore I cannot support the amendment and I hope that it will be rejected.

Mr. Buchan: I apologise for my slight interruption during a previous speech, but I did not know that the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Grimond) was sitting down and that he would continue to sit down.
Some of the things that I have heard tonight almost make me want to vote for the amendment of my hon. Friend the Member for Berwick and East Lothian (Mr. Mackintosh). I think that there has been a gross misunderstanding of the proposition that he has put forward. In many ways his proposals are perfectly reasonable and sensible in the light of what he is trying to do. However, I do not think I agree with what he is trying to do. His is a perfectly sensible prescription for those who want to manage society, but it is not sensible for those like me who want to change society.
That is my basic objection. I am in politics because I want to transform society. Others are in the business to preserve society as rigidly as possible. I think that my hon. Friend the Member for Berwick and East Lothian wants to manage it more efficiently, and if so this is what is required. That is not the reason why people join political parties. Therefore I reject my hon. Friend's basic premise.
The system that he proposes is that we should retain throughout the constituency link with the Assembly through two-thirds of its membership. This is good, and we all know it is good that Members should be responsible to a constituency in which they understand the macrocosm through their understanding of the microcosm problems.
I do not think that this is the only relationship between a Member and his constituency, because it is this second


relationship that brings into question the list system. It is all very well saying that the list system will not become the property of the party in a crude sense, namely, in the sense that party hacks, such as myself, will inevitably figure on the list. That may be so, but even if that is the case and good Members can be produced for a list which would otherwise not stand up, it is still true that those Members must secure a base in their own party.
8.45 p.m.
From time to time we all come into conflict with our party, but a secure base must exist to allow an individual Member to exercise his individual view when it is most necessary to do so. Shorn of that base, the list Member is inevitably in the position of having to retain the good will of the party. Although politicians come together because they have a common view about society, I have no doubt that there must be a leavening of individual Members so that they may exist to express their views.
For example, my hon. Friend the Member for West Lothian (Mr. Dalyell) has raised a sharp question on this legislation, and indeed has raised many important issues in the past. Men and individuals make their own history. The system will be greatly weakened once the majority takes over, and if 50 Members out of 150 Members are to be the relevant number to secure a majority of any group in this House, would that enable the leavening of which I have spoken still to exist? Therefore, if we are in politics basically to change society, I cannot see how that aim can be secured through the list system plus proportional representation.
Let us examine the figures produced by my hon. Friend the Member for Berwick and East Lothian. He said that the system had been grossly unfair, and I agree with him. As soon as there is a triple party, or even quadruple party, situation, with no clear lead in terms of a development of political forces in the country, there would tend to be a minority party with a majority of seats which would be able to exercise power. I do not think that is an inevitable factor in human affairs. Changes should occur in society to allow one or other of the parties to develop. That is how the course of history is changed.
My hon. Friend said that in a Scottish context the Scottish Assembly on the basis of his figures would consist of 58 Labour, 45 SNP, 36 Tory and 11 Liberal Members. I suggest that that combination of figures, even if we were to add a list system, although endorsing the presence of party would inhibit the application of party attitudes within a Government. That kind of combination of figures may well prevent the acceptance of party attitudes, which means that political and social attitudes may not be expressed. In other words, Members could vote on that basis but could not carry out the policies on which they were elected.

Mr. Rifkind: Is that not a polite way of saying that if the hon. Gentleman and his colleagues wished to put forward measures which did not have the support of the majority of the electorate, they would be inhibited from so doing?

Mr. Buchan: I shall deal with that important point in a moment.
The argument must be seen in a Scottish context. That context involves a tripartite arrangement with the fourth party in a small minority. In such a situation, where may party policy be effectively examined? Who would constitute the Government to implement party policy if we had this new acceptance of an enhanced rôle for the party?
If the Labour Party were the largest party, with whom could it have a coalition which would effectively allow it to carry out the party's policy, the policy for which the list system would be precisely devised under the proposed system? Would it be with the Liberals? Even with the support of the Liberals the Labour Party would still fail to carry a majority of votes even under the proposed allocation. It would remain in a permanent minority, and the party which had 45 seats, the Scottish National Party, would be in a wrecking position. The Tory Party, with 36 seats, is in constant conflict with any attempt at social change. Therefore, there would be no possible majority to continue.
Would the Labour Party have an alliance with the Tory Party? I came into this business to change capitalism, not to operate it. There is no basis for


a coalition, for my part, on basic economic and social questions, whatever contact I might have on a number of other significant and important issues. There would be no basis for a coalition on the crucial issues of politics which will determine the nature of our Government and society. Such a coalition is just not on.
What remains? Could there be a coalition between the Labour Party and the Scottish National Party or between the Tory Party and the SNP? There could be no other coalition. So the only effective Government in the Assembly would have to be formed by an alliance with the party which aims to destroy the Assembly and replace it with an independent State. That is a recipe for disaster. What kind of pact or agreement could be made or what basis for coalition could there be between either of the two major parties and the SNP? What would the SNP offer or, rather, demand for its support? That party has only one proposition—independence.

Mr. Thorpe: Does the hon. Gentleman accept that the logic of his argument is that if we have a fair reflection of the wishes of the people of Scotland, this could produce difficulties, and therefore we are entitled to cook the books to ensure that it does not happen?

Mr. Buchan: On the contrary I am not saying that at all. I am not saying that there would be difficulties. I am saying that it would be impossible to carry out the policies for which parties were formed and which the proposed amendment would write into the system. The important thing is that the proposed system writes in the party position, and it is precisely the party position which cannot be carried out. I go much further than the right hon. Gentleman suggests. I do not speak of difficulties. It is impossible.

Mr. Mackintosh: My hon. Friend seems to neglect the fact that at the moment this Government are sustained by the Liberal Party, by the right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell) and his hon. Friends, who have some ideological differences with my hon. Friend, and by the SNP, which hopes for other things. All that this does is to prevent one or two items in the whole

spectrum of the party's policy from being carried out, and these are items for which there is minority support in the country.

Mr. Buchan: I understand that, and I think that the intervention of the right hon. Member for Devon, North (Mr. Thorpe) was more to the point when he said that there was a suggestion of cooking the books.

Mr. Hamish Watt: rose—

Mr. David Penhaligon: rose—

Mr. Buchan: I shall not give way until I have answered the questions which I have been asked. Of course, that sort of thing will occur in the present situation. I have no doubt that in an Assembly in which a party had a small majority the same kind of cross-support would occur. But we should not have written in a situation in which it was impossible for a party to govern at all. The reason that the Labour Party is in power now is not that there is a formal pact with the Liberals but that Labour is unable to bring in those measures which would defeat it at present, by delay, and second, that the Liberal Party, to save its own skin, must support the pact. That is not dishonourable, and I welcome it.
Those of us who are in business to change society have to accept such inhibitions, because our main aim is to achieve the kind of majority in which our party can carry out its aims. There are temporary difficulties, but that we should write them in as a permanent feature of political life would be intolerable. Of course, there is a problem facing us because we have no clear majority.
Another reason why I am not urging the Liberal proposal harks back to the SNP position. Given the circumstances of the SNP, the Tory second vote would go to the SNP, as would the Labour second vote, so the SNP would get a massive vote from those who were anti-Tory or anti-Labour. That would mean that the SNP would be most likely to be able to wreck the whole situation.
I reject entirely the PR concept because it is not based on what we are in politics for. It is totally and basically destructive of that.
Of course we need structural reform, but there is no way in which we can


juggle electoral conflict between parties that have vastly dissimilar views by trying to produce such a coalition structure. The ultimate purpose and aim of such a concept is to preserve society because, by definition, the permanent coalition that would have to develop would mean permanent centrist policies that could only inhibit social change. Those who would grow up under such a structure and who wanted to reject it would find means other than elections to do so. Party structures would no longer be in a position to change society through parliamentary or Assembly means. That would be a dangerous position and such cooking of the books could not solve the much deeper problem. I believe that the Secretary of State has accepted that.

Mr. Malcolm Rifkind: The hon. Member for Renfrewshire, West (Mr. Buchan) has just unwittingly made a remarkable admission of the true nature of the left wing of his party. He has admitted that a fundamental reason why he differed from the hon. Member for Berwick and East Lothian (Mr. Mackintosh) was that, unlike the hon. Member for Berwick and East Lothian, his object was to seek to change society. The hon. Member for Renfrewshire West implied that proportional representation would prevent him from pursuing that objective. If the hon. Gentleman was correct in saying that, he is admitting that his desire to change society is fundamentally incompatible with the wishes of the majority of the electorate. If we were ever in a situation in which the majority of the electorate wished to change society in the way in which the hon. Gentleman wants to change it, it would not matter whether the system of elections used was first past the post or PR. There would be a Left-wing majority to pursue the aims that the hon. Gentleman seeks.

Mr. Buchan: I do not follow the preamble of the hon. Member for Edinburgh, Pentlands (Mr. Rifkind) to his final conclusion. I am in business to achieve the majority, backed by the people of this country, that will enable us to change society.

Mr. Rifkind: We are not talking about the long-term objectives of the hon. Member for Renfrewshire, West, but about the short-term method of electing

Parliaments and Assemblies. The hon. Gentleman cannot oppose proportional representation on the basis that he would then be opposed in pursuing his aims, unless he concedes that his objectives are not those of the majority of the electorate. The hon. Gentleman should consider that.
I listened with interest to the hon. Member for West Lothian (Mr. Dalyell). Much reference has been made to the West Lothian question and I sometimes think that if someone ever found an answer the hon. Member would change the question. However, clearly, on this issue the hon. Gentleman has fundamentally failed to understand what the debate is about. It is about the best way of creating an electoral system for a new legislature.
I sometimes think that debates about electoral systems take on the intensity and passion of a religious controversy. On the one hand, those who defend the first-past-the-post system imply that the political equivalent of the fate of Sodom and Gomorrah will await anyone who seeks to change the present method of election. On the other hand, those who support electoral reform sometimes imply that even the Second Coming must give way to proportional representation if the will of the majority is to be obtained.
Of course, the truth is neither of these extremes. We are not talking about some aspect of idealism, ideology or philosophy. The electoral system that is applied will be an inadequate mechanism whichever system is used to try to establish a representative political institution.

9.0 p.m.

Mr. Dalyell: Can the hon. Gentleman answer this practical question? Granted that there might be a small Liberal representation and an even smaller representation from the party of my hon. Friend the Member for South Ayrshire (Mr. Sillars), would the hon. Gentleman, as a Scottish Conservative, rather go into coalition with the Sodom of the Labour Party in Scotland or the Gomorrah of the Scottish National Party? He has to choose one or the other.

Mr. Rifkind: I should prefer the New Jerusalem to the Sodom of the hon. Gentleman's party or the Gomorrah of


the Nationalists. However, the hon. Gentleman seems to be under a curious misapprehension that the present electoral system guarantees an absence of coalition Governments. Even with a first-past-the-post system operating for the Scottish Assembly, given the present disposition of the Scottish electorate, there would be a great probability of the same problem arising. It is quite likely that no one party would have an absolute majority and the hon. Gentleman would therefore still have to consider sullying his political purity by allying himself to Members of another party if the government of Scotland is to be continued. The problem does not arise only under proportional representation, though it is more likely to do so. No one party has an absolute majority in this House and the system has adapted, in the form of the Lib-Lab alliance, order to overcome that difficulty.
When considering the appropriate system of election to the Scottish Assembly, we must remember the fundamental difference between that and the proper method of election to this House. That difference is that the Assembly does not yet exist. We have the rare opportunity of starting from the beginning and deciding the appropriate electoral system for a completely new legislature
If the amendment proposed a change in the electoral system for Westminster I might vote against it—even though the arguments in favour of it might be similar to those put forward by the hon Member for Berwick and East Lothian. We should then have to balance the arguments in favour of proportional representation against the disadvantages of changing a system that has operated reasonably well for more than 200 years Some hon Members might favour proportional representation for this House. That would be a responsible position, but the advantages of proportional representation would have to be balanced against the disadvantages of disturbing thestatus quo.
In considering the best method of election to the Scottish Assembly, we are controlled by no such discipline. Whichever system we choose, we shall be creating a method of election for a completely new legislature and we have an

exciting opportunity to consider the matter entirely on its merits.
There are many good arguments both for and against the amendment, but I hope that no hon. Member will vote for or against because of the effect that the decision on the amendment might have on some other legislature such as this House or the European Assembly. I know that there are hon. Members who favour or oppose the amendment not because of its direct relevance to the Scottish Assembly but because they are terrified or enthusiastic about the prospects of proportional representation in this House. Although I can understand that aspect, I hope that they will not allow it to determine their attitude when we come to vote on the amendments.
I say that for two fundamental reasons. First, I do not believe that the amendments, if carried, would create an irreversible precedent that had to be applied to the House of Commons or the European Assembly.
We have the precedent of Northern Ireland, where proportional representation was introduced, for good reasons or bad, but no one has seriously suggested that because it was introduced for Northern Ireland it must be applied in other legislatures. That does not increase or diminish the argument for different methods of election for other legislatures. With that precedent I hope that the Committee will agree that the same argument will apply with the Scottish Assembly. The issue will have to be considered on its merits. It would be a sorry pass if the House of Commons were to vote on such a fundamental issue affecting a subordinate legislature not on its merits but on disparate side effects that might be believed would occur if such amendments were carried. If the Assembly is to be created, I believe that it deserves the electoral system that is suitable for the job and the situation in Scotland. These are the criteria that should apply in considering the amendments. I am happy to support the amendments because of the circumstances that apply to the Scottish Assembly, which I believe point overwhelmingly to the desirability of a different electoral system for elections to that legislature.
The first argument must be that the two-party system, whatever continued vitality it has for the United Kingdom


as a whole, does not exist in Scotland and has not existed for a number of years. It is unlikely to return for a good number of years to come. It has already been pointed out how the division of opinion in Scotland is split fairly equally three ways. However, there is another factor. If hon. Members consider the political history of Scotland and the voting habits of the electorate in Scotland over the past 70 years, they will appreciate that it is extremely unusual at a General Election for any one political party to command the support of even 50 per cent. of the electorate. That is not a phenomenon that has occurred since the rise of the Scottish National Party, although its rise has exacerbated the tendency.
If we consider the elections of the past 50 years since the Labour Party became the force in Scottish politics, the astonishing fact is that although it has on many occasions won a majority of the seats in Scotland in the House of Commons it has never in its history won 50 per cent. of the popular vote in Scotland. That was the position even before the SNP was invented. Never has the Labour Party achieved that target. Clearly the SNP has come nowhere near it.
It is a matter of some amusement, and certainly of delightful expectation to myself and to my colleagues, that the only political party that has achieved that target is the Scottish Conservative Party. In 1955 it became the first party this century to achieve a total plurality of the Scottish popular vote at a General Election. That indicates clearly that Scotland, irrespective of the SNP, is not a two-party system in the sense of at least one party being able to command a majority of the Scottish popular vote. In that respect it is different from the rest of the United Kingdom.
In England it is by no means unusual for the Conservative Party to acquire over 50 per cent. of the vote. In Wales the Labour Party has nearly always acquired over 50 per cent. In Northern Ireland the Ulster Unionists, or various groupings of Unionism have clearly demonstrated their support by the overwhelming majority of the Ulster popular vote. In Scotland that has not happened. Therefore, a Scottish Assembly that is to be concerned only with the political habits and loyalties of the public in Scotland should take cognisance of that

phenomenon. The electoral system should reflect that fact.
There is a second consideration that has not yet been mentioned—namely, that we are at present a bicameral system. When Stormont existed the Northern Irish system had bicameral features. The Government's proposals for Scotland involve not a bicameral legislature but a single-chamber Parliament. That is of importance to the debates that we are now having.
Everyone accepts that the first-past-the-post system is inherently unfair, or can be, in many circumstances. One of the modifying factors that acts against that unfairness is that in most systems where it applies there is an upper House or revising Chamber that can take account of the non-representative nature that sometimes exists in the lower House. We know in this very Parliament how the other place is often used—many of us believe rightly—as a justification for rejecting certain of the amendments carried in this place. The argument is that the Government of the day, although they may have an artificial majority in the House of Commons, do not command the support of 50 per cent. of the electorate.

Mr. John Lee: I follow the hon. Member's reasoning, but will he give an instance of when there has been a non-Conservative majority in the other Chamber to provide a countervailing influence to a disproportionate Conservative majority in this House?

Mr. Rifkind: The hon. Member's argument may be a very powerful one for reform of the other place. It is certainly not an argument, however, for the abolition of the other place, but for it to be more representative so that it does not have an in-built majority for one party. But if this House has within it a party which, while it commands a majority in this House, does not have anything like a majority of the British public behind it, the other place represents one way in which decisions taken by this House can be revised and secondary consideration given to them. That applies in all bicameral legislatures.
In Scotland this will not be possible if the Bill is implemented as it stands


The decisions will be taken by an Assembly with an Executive which might be able to command the support of only 36 per cent. of the electorate. There will be no revising Chamber or any other place which can consider, review or give time for fresh thought on decisions by that Executive and by that unrepresentative Assembly. This, there fore, is the second reason why the electoral system that is to be applied to the Assembly, as long as the Government insist on a unicameral system for Scotland, should take account of the problem Therefore there is a greater need than would otherwise exist for a truly representative system for elections to the Assembly.
The third and fundamentally important reason why a different electoral system is required must be that not only is there a three or four-party system in Scotland, but that one of the parties—the SNP—differs from its opponents not simply in terms of its economic or social policies but because it fundamentally objects to the constitutional structure of the United Kingdom.

Mr. Dalyell: You cannot go into a coalition with them.

Mr. Rifkind: For once I am delighted to welcome the seated intervention by the hon. Member for West Lothian. Whether we go into a coalition with them will be a matter to be determined in the future. I would rather go into a coalition with any party—even the Labour Party—in a Scottish Assembly or elsewhere than allow the Assembly to be dominated by a party which, although it cannot command the support of the majority of people in Scotland, nevertheless had a totally unqualified control of that Assembly.

Mr. Dalyell: Would it not make relations with Conservative Central Office and, for that matter, Transport House, a little strained if there were a Labour-Conservative coalition in Scotland? What would that do to the future of British parties?

Mr. Rifkind: Frankly, the future of political parties in Britain is a minor consideration compared with the future of the United Kingdom itself. I understood that the hon. Member's aim was to seek to

preserve the United Kingdom. He should realise that if, in spite of his valiant efforts, this Bill reaches the statute book, and if the Scottish people in a referendum vote in favour of an Assembly, he should not give up his work to preserve the Union.
In that case he should consider what type of Assembly is best likely to preserve and strengthen the Union. Would it be an Assembly elected by a system which could give a separatist party with a small minority of the vote total control of the Assembly, or would it be a system of election which was likely to produce a result representative of the will of the people of Scotland?

Mr. Watt: Does the hon. Member not agree that he is labouring his argument and that with the wonderful new opportunity we shall have in the Scottish Assembly to set up a system of pre-legislative committees, many of the problems he envisages will not arise?

Mr. Rifkind: I wish that I were naïve enough to believe that if the hon. Member and his hon. Friends take part in the deliberations of the Assembly their sole objective will be to improve its committees. He and his colleagues will have only one purpose in fighting the elections to the Assembly and seeking to dominate it—

Mr. Watt: To make Scottish government work.

Mr. Rifkind: Not only that, but to seek to use the Assembly, to disrupt and break up the United Kingdom. If the hon. Member does not concede that fact now he is not being honest with his electorate or with this Committee.

9.15 p.m.

Mr. Dalyell: If the hon. Member turns to the Second Reading debate, he will see that this was precisely the point that I made. I said that once an Assembly was established it would be no good anyone turning round to people such as me and saying that it was now up to us to keep the kingdom united, since our defences would have been taken away.

Mr. Rifkind: It is not correct for the hon. Member to say that. If the time comes when the majority of the people in Scotland wish the SNP to control the Assembly or to have separation from the


rest of the United Kingdom, that cannot be denied them. Is the hon. Member seriously suggesting that we should encourage an electoral system which would produce an Assembly that could be controlled by a party that sought separatism and that had the support of only one-third of the public vote?
The situation in Quebec has been mentioned. Not only did the support for thePartie Quebecois go up from 30 per cent. to 40 per cent.—which was still a minority—but its representation in the provincial Assembly went up from six to 65. Although its share of the poll went up by only a modest 10 per cent., although it remained the minority party, its representation in the provincial Assembly went up from six to 65 seats. That situation created a fundamental constitutional crisis in Canada.
That is bound to happen whenever a political party seeks to use its artificial majority to disrupt the sovereignty and constitution of the country. The same happened in Chile, when Allende was elected on a minority vote but had more seats than his opponents. He sought to use his position of power to force through constitutional and economic changes that had been rejected by the majority of the electorate.

Mr. James Dempsey: I draw the hon. Member's attention to what happened in this House not so long ago. The Labour Party which was in opposition had a larger vote in the country than the Conservative Party which was governing the country. That did not prevent the Conservatives from governing the country in accordance with Conservative policies. There is no reason, therefore, why a party whose candidates have been elected to govern should not govern.

Mr. Rifkind: I cannot accept that comparison. It is true that there have been occasions in this House when the Government of the day have been elected on a minority vote. That happened in February 1974 when a Labour Government were elected, although they had less votes than the Opposition. It is one of the inadequacies of our present system. However unfair and unfortunate it might be when the two parties involved are Conservative and Labour, I suggest that it is fundamentally more dangerous when

one of the parties challenges the fundamental constitutional structure of the United Kingdom.
Last time we had this debate I gave an example of what could happen. Let us assume that this Government tried to abolish the monarchy by seeking to use its artificial majority without the support of the majority of the electorate. That would precipitate a grave constitutional crisis. The same thing would happen whichever party was seeking to bring about a fundamental constitutional change without majority support. That is the situation which could exist in the Assembly if a separatist party were to be in control.
I do not believe that the nationalists will gain control of the Assembly at the first elections. But we are not concerned only with the first elections. The Assembly will exist for at least 40 or 50 years, if not longer. At some point it is not unlikely that the Scottish National Party may be able to command more support in Scotland than other parties. This must be a consideration which the Committee should take into account.
The vote we are to take on this amendment is of fundamental importance, not simply because of vague theories about proportional representation but because there could be direct and serious consequences for the United Kingdom depending on the electoral system chosen. That is one of the major objectives which hon. Members should take into account. I believe that if they do it will point them in the direction of supporting the amendment.

Mr. Russell Johnston: I will not immediately follow the speech of the hon. Member for Edinburgh, Pentlands (Mr. Rifkind), although I thought he put the case most cogently. I want rather to spend a little time looking at the arguments advanced by those who oppose any suggestion of proportional representation, whether according to the method proposed by the hon. Member for Berwick and East Lothian (Mr. Mackintosh) and others, or by those who have advocated some system of single transferable vote.
I start with the hon. Member for West Lothian (Mr. Dalyell), since he is present and, I suspect, will be present throughout the long days on this Bill,


which is a somewhat dispiriting thought at this time of night. The hon. Gentleman's argument against proportional representation, as I understood it, appeared to be basically that if we had it we would have coalitions—and, gosh, look how difficult they would be to make up!
There are two arguments contrary to that. The first is that if there is a first-past-the-post-system there is a strong probability—more than a possibility because of the three-party system which has developed—of the same situation occurring. This is because of the way public opinion is divided. It may be unsatisfactory to hon. Members that public opinion is divided in this way. They may regret it, but democracy is a system of counting votes. If the votes fall out in a way that we do not like, that is tough luck. It is something politicians have to deal with. It is the way in which, commonly in democracies, this situation is handled. Coalition is by no means extraordinary or all that difficult.
Let me give an example. The hon. Member said how terrible and impossible it would be for the Labour Party in Scotland to form any coalition with the Conservative Party there. I see the difficulties. Transport House would be in transports but not of delight I suspect. Smith Square would be in an uproar.
However, the hon. Member is more used than most to difficulties—he appears, relatively, to thrive upon them. In West Germany, for example, at the moment there is a coalition between the Social Democrats and the Free Democrats in the Government in Bonn. There are at least twoLänder, or State parliaments, where there is a coalition of Free Democrats and Christian Democrats. That appears to work rather well.

Mr. Dalyell: None of these parties in the Bundestag is committed to the breakup of the German State. The difference is that here is a party with the whole elaborate machinery of a party, the camaraderie of a party organisation, a party whose wholeraison d'etre is the break-up of the State. This makes the position fundamentally different.

Mr. Johnston: A little while ago the hon. Gentleman denied that he had any phobia about the SNP, whose Members

are not here in great numbers. It is not quite as apocalyptic a situation as he describes. At the moment the SNP has about 30 per cent. support from the Scottish public. I do not believe and neither do a great many people in the SNP, that that means that all of these people favour outright separatism tomorrow. It is a fact that within the SNP, even within the Members of Parliament here, there is a gradualist approach, and a maximist approach and divisions between those approaches. The SNP is quite good at covering up those divisions, and I do not blame it for that because all parties do it to some extent. It is not as apocalyptic as he describes.
I do not see the impossibility of parties making accommodations in that situation. Nor, for that matter, does it necessarily follow, as the hon. Gentleman implicitly put it, that "If the Labour Party in Scotland goes into coalition with the SNP, the nationalists will be strengthened or we shall be discredited or find it impossible to pursue a programme". I do not think that either of those possibilities is a necessity.
We on the Liberal Benches are in agreement with the Labour Government. Some people, particularly Conservatives, tell us that this is liable to lead to our total destruction, that it is a form of self-immolation. It is not. It is part of the process of getting people to co-operate with limited objectives, which is what a coalition is. It is not a merging or fusing of ideologies. It is an agreement for specific objectives. It would be a good thing to develop such an attitude in this country, although it is not a primary argument for or against proportional representation.
The other argument, produced by the hon. Member for Fife, East (Sir J. Gilmour), was that it was all very complicated for the electors, particularly in East Fife.

Sir J. Gilmour: I take great exception to the suggestion that the electors of East Fife would be less able to make up their minds than the electors of Inverness. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will withdraw that remark.

Mr. Johnston: It was simply that the hon. Gentleman mentioned some specific places, like Auchtermuchtie and Pittaweem. He must remember that a very


large number of workers in the United Kingdom, in the National Union of Mineworkers and the National Union of Teachers, and the ETU, for example, vote on a proportional representation system now. It is not a recondite, strange matter worked out in a Buddhist temple which would be incomprehensible to the electors in East Fife.

Sir J. Gilmour: Can the hon. Gentleman tell us what proportion of the people he mentioned vote under this system?

Mr. Johnston: I cannot exactly state that figure. I do not like producing guesses of figures, but it is certainly a large number. But in any event, apart from that, it is true, and should not be ignored, that in every democratic country in Europe—in the world, indeed—there are different systems of proportional election. Northern Ireland is often quoted here. It should not be forgotten that Eire has operated a system of proportional representation—through the single transferable vote—for many years, with no dire internal effects and no lack of comprehension amongst the Irish electors.

Mr. Rathbone: The hon. Gentleman is falling into the trap of drawing a difference between the first-past-the-post system and proportional systems. The first-past-the-post system is crudely proportional, and what we are discussing is what is the best proportional system for the election of a Scottish Assembly. Like the hon. Gentleman, I support a system which is more proportionate than the one used to elect us. I do so because of its greater proportionality. It is a trap which people fall into when comparing proportional representation with other systems of election such as we have here. They are all roughly proportionate.

9.30 p.m.

Mr. Johnston: With all respect to the hon. Gentleman—and I hate arguing with people who have indicated that they agree with me—it appears to me that the first-past-the-post system when more than two parties are involved becomes progressively less proportional.
One of the main arguments advanced by the hon. Member for Pentlands and by the hon. Member for Berwick and East Lothian is that, because we now have three major parties in Scotland,

the first-past-the-post system becomes very much less proportional, in the same way as happened in the United Kingdom in February and October of 1974.
The other main argument advanced by the hon. Member for Renfrewshire, West (Mr. Buchan) was essentially, as far as I could understand it, that he would not be able to change society if we had a proportional representation system of any kind because he would be robbed of his chance of getting power and getting a majority. He said that that was really what it was all about. He also agreed with the hon. Member for West Lothian—who must be finding it difficult to get people to agree with him these days—that he would find the idea of a coalition with the Conservatives in Scotland an impossibility because of the deep ideological divide which separates them.
Yet at the same time he is equally prepared to argue—positively to argue, in fact—in favour of a system which allows, on a regular Buggins's turn basis, the Conservatives to get in, often for long periods of time. The logic of the argument advanced by the hon. Member for Renfrewshire, West is that in order to get his chance to be in Government from time to time he is prepared to allow the Conservatives to be in Government for very considerable lengths of time. He prefers that sort of sharp confrontation and change situation to any relatively stable integration such as might otherwise be produced.
I know that hon. Members are always reluctant to look at Continental examples, as the hon. Member for Berwick and East Lothian said, but Sweden, which has a proportional system of election, had the Social Democrats in office for nearly 50 years. Proportional representation does not always produce coalitions. But that is not really the fundamental question. The fundamental question is whether this is a fair system of election.
What are the Government proposing? They are proposing that for the first election there shall be two members elected to practically all the constituencies and that in some constituencies which have large electorates there shall be three. I understand that in places such as the Western Isles and Orkney and Shetland there will be only one.

Mr. John Smith: There is no parliamentary constituency that has less than two. Certain large constituencies have three. In the case of Orkney and Shetland there will be one to Orkney and one to Shetland. They have already been allocated.

Mr. Johnston: I apologise to the hon. Gentleman. At any rate, that is not really the point that I am reaching. That is the scheme and of course there will be two votes, one for each candidate. If there are three candidates, I understand there will be three votes. I notice that the Minister is nodding.
I take my own case as an example so that I give offence to the smallest number. In Inverness at the last Wesminster election I got 32 per cent. of the poll in a four-way split. Let us suppose that at the first Assembly election the voting went in the same way. That is not an unreasonable or fantastic proposition. There would then be, with a poll of 32 per cent., not only one Johnston but two Johnstons. [HON. MEMBERS: "No)."] Yes, that would be the case.
Let me take as an example Midlothian, whose hon. Member is the Under-Secretary of State for Energy. A Labour voter will go out and vote for three Labour candidates. He will not vote for one Labour, one Liberal, and one SNP candidate. I accept that it does not appear quite so bad in the case of Midlothian, because, as I understand it, the hon. Member for that constituency has quie a sizeable majority. But what will be the position with regard to Dunbartonshire, East? The hon. Lady cannot have had more than 33 per cent. of the vote and we shall now get two Members for that.
At the last election the Labour Party in Scotland got 36 per cent. of the vote and 57 per cent. of the seats. This time we multiply the number of seats by two. We get twice as many seats for 36 per cent. of the vote. The distortion and the injustice are doubled, yet the Government are putting this proposition seriously before the House as the right thing to do, quite apart from the risks one runs in terms of the current situation and the likelihood that one party shall have an exaggerated majority in a new institution.

Dr. S. M. Miller: I have been listening carefully to the hon.

Gentleman's views on PR. He has been telling the Committee of the disadvantages, which we all know about, of the first-past-the-post system. Will he now tell us what the positive advantages are of the system that he advocates?

Mr. Johnston: I shall certainly come to that. As one might reasonably expect, I was dealing with the counter arguments that have been advanced because this is a debate rather than an engagement in party pieces. I shall come back to the hon. Gentleman's question in a moment.
I want to turn directly to the amendment of the hon. Member for Berwick and East Lothian and to say something briefly about it. As the House knows, the Liberal position for many years is that we favour the system of PR referred to as the single transferable vote. That is the system used in Ireland and the one which was reintroduced in Northern Ireland by a former Conservative Government.
The major objection advanced against the AMS system—the added-Membersystem—during our previous debates was that the topping-up list as previously proposed was based on some sort of league table of the defeated candidates. This was rightly accepted by everyone interested in PR in principle as a fair criticism. That is why the hon. Member for Berwick and East Lothian has suggested that the added Members be topped-up Members from party lists.
There has, of course, already been criticism of this. Several hon. Members have asked whether a candidate would prefer to stand for election or go on to the party list. That is for the parties to determine. We are moving into a different situation. The elector has a relatively straightforward vote as before but, secondly, he has a vote for a party which comprises the proportionality of the result. I think that that is a fair and reasonable approach. Certainly it is one which my colleagues and I will support when the matter comes to a Division. It is one which overcomes the criticism felt by many hon. Members of the single transferable vote system, which I myself prefer.
I want now to say one or two brief words about the single transferable vote system. Although I am conscious that it may not necessarily attract the maximum degree of consensus support within


what might be referred to as the PR lobby, that in no way detracts from my view that it is the best system.
Amendment No. 18, if accepted, is applicable and creates a greater degree of proportionality whatever system is finally adopted, whether it is the added-Member system or whether in the end it is the Government's system. The amendment provides that every vote in an Assembly constituency shall be a single transferable vote.
As hon. Members know, that means that instead of voting "X", the elector puts down "1", "2", and "3" in his order of preference. That is the essential advantage of the single transferable vote system as a system of proportional representation. It is not only about proportionality. It is also about preferentiality—I always think that it is a great pity that most good Liberal thoughts have to be expressed in multi-syllabic language—but it is also a preference vote as well as being a proportional vote, and that is its essential advantage.
In the case of a single-Member seat such as, for example, Orkney and Shetland, STV becomes essentially an alternative vote in the same way as it is used in Australia. That is the consequence of it. By eliminating the candidate with the least number of first preferences and transferring them, it makes sure that at least the man or woman elected gets more than 50 per cent. of the votes. That seldom happens now where there are more than two candidates, and that is very important also. If, however, it is applied to a multi-Member constituency, in respect of which we have tabled an amendment and which in our judgment is the fairest system, it allows the elector not just simply to express a party preference but to express an individual preference as between the party standard-bearers whom he might want.
Applying Amendment No. 18 to the AM system, which is practically the German system, again simply the alternative vote operates in the single constituencies. It does not have any effect on the list. The list system remains as before. In this case the single transferable vote cannot be applied to the list.
I want to re-emphasise the point rightly and properly made by the hon. Member for Pentlands. He laid stress on the fact

that in the coming days and months we shall be building a new institution. It is a new opportunity to do something better, more effectively and more acceptably than it has been done before.
9.45 p.m.
It is all very well to make criticisms, but it is not easy to change traditions in an established institution such as our own. It is not really even fair necessarily for people such as I and others to rail about this from time to time. It is a customary thing. That is so. But here we are producing something new, and I think that there is a real chance of producing something better. In pure terms of democracy, to produce an electoral system which is fairer than the one that we have is a good political democratic objective.
The second thing that I would say is that in the practical political circumstances that now obtain in Scotland. whatever one's particular preference may be—I am not endeavouring to attack any party at all—to have three parties running neck and neck is obviously a situation in which operating a first-past-the-post system, whose crudities, as I have pointed out before, are doubled and in some cases trebled by the Government's propositions, means that one can well start off in a way in which the public at large will look at this Assembly and say "It is nonsense. These people are trying to run our lives on the basis of having had 35 per cent. of the vote."

Mr. Dalyell: Hear, hear.

Mr. Johnston: It is all very well for the hon. Member for West Lothian to say "Hear, hear". At the moment that fact is largely concealed by the fact that everyone flows down into Westminster. It would not be concealed in that situation. It would be transparent. I think that our democracy should be as transparent as we can make it.

Mr. Dempsey: After listening to this debate, I thought that we were discussing an amendment that proportional representation should replace the system which has been well tried and tested and which has been found to operate fairly successfully.

Mrs. Winifred Ewing: No.

Mr. Dempsey: Yes, for a very long time in this country. The amendment would replace that by a new approach known as proportional representation. But it is not a new approach. This country once had forms of proportional representation, and we abolished them under the Local Government Act 1929 because we found that they were confused, complicated and costly and that any advantages in them were outweighed by these several disadvantages.
When I listened to the hon. Member for Edinburgh, Pentlands (Mr. Rifkind), I could not help but recollect the definition given of proportional representation by a former well-known, renowned leader of the Conservative Party in the House, none other than Sir Winston Churchill. He said that proportional representation was a system whereby the candidate at the bottom of the poll could win an election. That is how he described it. We have had that point illustrated very carefully tonight by my hon. Friend the Member for Berwick and East Lothian (Mr. Mackintosh). We talked about the possibility of the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Grimond) losing his seat but, because of the number of Liberal voters in the country, he would be imposed on an electorate that had already rejected him, from the polls, the party hack list. This is where the party hacks would come from. Most people involved in the political parties know that.
Here we have an illustration of something that is totally anti-democratic. The hon. Member for Inverness (Mr. Johnston) was at great pains to tell us how democratic this system was. That is how democratic it is. One could have someone from the regional list, not elected at all, being imposed on electors by party people.
One of the cardinal failures of the advocacy of my hon. Friend the Member for Berwick and East Lothian and of the case that I heard from the hon. Member for Inverness is that it completely ignores the constituency base.
The Assembly we are discussing is a mini-Parliament with quite extensive powers. According to the grapevine, it will have economic powers and marginal taxation powers. I do not believe that the hon. Member for Edinburgh, Pentlands

can argue for one system of election to this mini-Parliament without the same system being employed in the superior Parliament. I think that it must either be first past the post or proportional representation for both.

Mr. Russell Johnston: Could the hon. Member tell me whether he voted for proportional representation to be introduced in Northern Ireland? If he did so, how does this square with what he has just said?

Mr. Dempsey: I accepted the advice of the Government. I did not oppose proportional representation in Northern Ireland.

Mrs. Winifred Ewing: Why not?

Mr. Dempsey: I am a bit of a loyalist. I was loyal to my party. Quite frankly, in approaching elections to any Assembly a great deal depends on the individuals concerned. Looking at our own particular Assembly, whether we use PR or first past the post or some other pearl of wisdom system invented by someone, in all probability the result will be that no party will have an absolute majority. That is nothing new. We are governing today without a majority. American presidents have for years, since time immemorial, governed while the two Houses of Parliament were controlled by the opposite party. They manage to function for four years at a time. There is no reason why our system cannot operate so that a minority can govern the Assembly.
Northern Ireland is not the first instance in which an elected Government, have not agreed to give fair representation to minority parties on committees, for example. If a minority party has only one-third of the seats, it should get one-third of the representation on committees and one-third of the convenorships of those committees. There is no reason why, given good will, understanding, common sense and our built-in democracy this cannot operate in this case. Of course it can.
I am surprised that when we debate the system of election to our Assembly we seem to have all sorts of crystal-gazing about which will be the top party, the second party or the bottom party. We also talk about how many parties there will be, and how they will exist if someone does not have an overall majority.


I do not think that is entirely relevant to the argument whether we should elect this Assembly on the basis of PR or first past the post.
I believe in first past the post and I stand by that belief. I am surprised to hear all the dissertations from the Liberal Party—

Mr. Penhaligon: If an election in Scotland gave the SNP an overall majority of the seats on, say, 37 per cent. of the poll, would the hon. Gentleman accept that as a mandate for independence?

Mr. Dempsey: No. The SNP, as any other party, would go forward to the polls in Scotland on the basis of an election manifesto. The SNP would know that it did not have the authority to determine Scotland's independence. It is the prerogative of the United Kingdom to decide whether Scotland or Wales or England should have independence. If we were deciding an issue of that nature, there would have to be a referendum in Scotland to decide whether the people want independence. I am not against a referendum, I am against independence, and I would campaign for the unity of the United Kingdom. I suggest that that would give the people of Scotland a right to determine by a democratic referendum whether there were a particular demand from any section of society north of the border.

Mrs. Winifred Ewing: Answer the question.

Mr. Dempsey: I am answering the question. The SNP has no authority to campaign on the basis of a referendum for Scotland to be determined by the United Kingdom. That can be done only by this Parliament here at Westminster. I am saying that the fair way to tackle that problem is to have a referendum in Scotland if there is a demand for such an expression of opinion, and that we should let the Scottish people decide the issue rather than members of the SNP.
I stand by the will of the people. Even though I opposed our entry into the EEC, I accepted the will of the people on that occasion. I shall accept the will of the people on any issue in Scotland. Indeed, on the coming referendum, I shall again be guided by the will of the people. If the people reject the setting up of an

Assembly, I shall accept that decision. Let us put these red herrings aside and deal principally—

The Second Deputy Chairman (Mr. Bryant Godman Irvine): Order. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will address himself to the amendment.

Mr. Dempsey: That was why I mentioned the red herring, Mr. Irvine. It will lead me through troubled waters to the amendment.
My hon. Friend the Member for Berwick and East Lothian ably introduced his amendment. I admire the way in which he delivered his remarks, but I differ from his approach to the problem. However, we do not know what is before us. We do not know the implications, and in 1929 we discontinued proportional representation as a system of electing governing bodies.
Having regard to the principle of this argument, I believe that we should leave well alone. We have all taken our chances under the first-past-the-post system. It has its advantages and disadvantages. I believe that the advantages of FPP outweigh the disadvantages. That is why I stand by that system because it gives the electors in a constituency the sole determining opporunity to elect their representative.
I believe that we are passing through a new phase in our electoral system. There is no longer the same deep-rooted loyalty to a particular party label and that should be recognised. There is a growing tendency to have a particular feeling and respect for and to have confidence in a candidate because of his or her stability, integrity, character and personal service to the people. Therefore, more and more electors wish to have an opportunity to express their appreciation of those who they believe are more suitably geared to serve a particular constituency.
In many respects, proportional representation would prevent that very important consideration by the electors, who, after all, are taxpayers. Their representative is accountable to the taxpayers for his activities in the House or any other Assembly. We should bear that thought prominently in our minds when we decide this issue. I certainly hope that we shall stand by the system which has proved its worth in days gone by and will, I hope,


prove it in future, namely the first-past-the-post system.

10.0 p.m.

Mr. W. Benyon: I wish I could share the optimism of the hon. Member for Coatbridge and Airdrie (Mr. Dempsey) about the personal vote which a Member of any Assembly can obtain under the present system.
I regard debate on this group of amendments as a logical progression from the debate we had on the last group. I do not want the Bill. I detest the Bill, and I do not want an Assembly, but we have had the vote on Second Reading and now the guillotine, and therefore we have to turn our attention to the Bill itself and see how those of us who feel passionately about the preservation of the Union can make the Bill better and how it can achieve that end, to preserve the Union.
I turn, first, to the precedent of Stormont because this is an important precedent in what we are discussing. Whatever anyone may think about it and what it did, Stormont it was a success as a devolved Assembly because the majority of people in Northern Ireland wished to maintain the Union. That is different from the situation which we now contemplate for the Scottish Assembly. The one concern of the Scottish National Party is to crack the Union.

Mrs. Winifred Ewing: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman can explain why the Conservative Party forced a Division and voted against the clause which was in favour of the unity of the United Kingdom.

Mr. Benyon: The hon. Lady knows perfectly well that amendments which would have made that clause acceptable were not accepted, and we therefore voted to delete the clause itself, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Cambridgeshire (Mr. Pym) explained.

Mrs. Winifred Ewing: Answer.

Mr. Benyon: In the case of Stormont, because there was good will, it worked, but because that good will is not there in this case, particularly from the Scottish nationalists, it will not work in a Scottish Assembly. We must see how we can give the people of Scotland the oppor

tunity to express their wishes in this respect.
Later in our discussions on the Bill we shall discuss the referendum, and I am sure that it will be suggested that the referendum is the last recourse if the Scottish National Party obtains a majority in the Assembly and calls for complete independence. But we are likely to be faced with a series of situations in which a referendum will be necessary, and that would be a totally unstable and difficult state of affairs. It would be much better to create a form of representation in the Assembly which would truly reflect the wishes of the Scottish people and continue to reflect their wishes in future.
I suggest, therefore, that different conditions apply to Scotland from those applying, for instance, to Europe or to the future of the electoral system in this country. It is not a valid argument to state that, if we vote for proportional representation in the Scottish Assembly, we are—to use the terms used by some hon. Members—selling the pass in regard to Europe or Great Britain.
I say to the hon. Member for West Lothian (Mr. Dalyell), who is so concerned about the future coalitions that might arise under this system, that he is taking, too rigid a view about a Labour-Tory coalition or a Labour-Liberal coalition. In these circumstances we could very well have the sort of breakdown of the party system which many of us would like to see generally in this country. There is no reason why the hon. Member for West Lothian might not combine with one or two of my hon. Friends in a future Scottish Assembly and thereby create a majority that could govern. The hon. Member is being far too rigid in talking about this matter in terms of party allegiance.

Mr. Dalyell: Some of my colleagues understand that this could lead to the break-up of the Labour Party and trade union movement as we have known it.

Mr. Benyon: I forbear to comment on the advantages that that would bring. I do not know whether that is dealt with in the hon. Gentleman's book, but I must get it quickly.
The situation is not now and is not likely to be the same in future and allowances must be made for the unforeseen.


This group of amendments will be crucial if the Bill reaches the statute book, and I hope that the Committee will support them.

Mr. Ogden: The hon. Member for Buckingham (Mr. Benyon) argued that there were basic reasons why proportional representation should not be implemented in Scotland and that conditions were quite different in Northern Ireland. He suggested that the majority of hon. Members and the majority of people wanted Scotland to remain part of the United Kingdom.
However, the hon. Gentleman assumed that because some SNP Members here are committed to separatism, immediately or eventually, the majority of the Scottish people were not in favour of the unity of the United Kingdom. I do not know whether that has been decided and I do not know the answer for sure, although I think I know it. However, surely the situations in Scotland and Northern Ireland are not so different. There is a majority of people in Northern Ireland who want to remain part of the United Kingdom and some who look for an united Ireland. In Scotland, I hope, the majority of people want to remain part of the United Kingdom, but some seem to want separatism.

Mr. Powell: The hon. Member for Buckingham (Mr. Benyon) was oversimplifying. The contrast is that the divide in Northern Ireland has hitherto been between those who are for and those who are against the link, whereas in Scotland the division has hitherto been more complex. It has been between those against Union and those who are divided on other deep issues. That is the situation that produces the contrast with which the hon. Member for Buckingham was concerned.

Mr. Ogden: What is the overriding concern of those two people? Apart from differences in emphasis, I believe that the majority in both countries want to remain part of the United Kingdom. To which will they give priority?

Mr. Powell: If the possibility of a breach of the Union becomes imminent in Scotland, that might well, at any rate temporarily, consolidate those in favour of Union into one political force that would produce a genuine analogy with Northern Ireland.

Mr. Ogden: We agree that there are weaknesses in the argument of the hon. Member for Buckingham, but we do not completely agree on what is the weakest party. It is not as simple as the hon. Gentleman suggested.
I want to put some questions to the Minister and I hope that he will be able to spend some time in answering them. He was unable to do that during the last debate because of the pressure of time—and I make no criticism of that—and he was busy answering questions from the Opposition. However, it will help to get me into the right Lobby if I receive some answers.
According to the Government's proposal, the Scottish Assemblymen—SAM 1, 2 and 3—will be elected on three different bases within a four-year period. The first election will be on a constituency basis. Then, between two and four months later, there will be a second election. Then, after the Boundary Commission has finally reported, there will be a return to one-Member constituencies. Will the Minister explain?

Mr. John Smith: I shall answer now. The House may be aware from consideration of the Bill that the proposition is that at the first election there will be elected either two or three Assemblymen per constituency. After a four-year period, when the Boundary Commission will have reported, there will be single-Member constituencies. There is no question of another election two to four months after the first.

Mr. Ogden: My hon. Friend has cleared up one point. Within the four-year period there will be elections in two geographical areas and not three, as I suggested. The present constituencies will be divided on the first two occasions between two-Member and three-Member constituencies. Later the Boundary Commission will have to get to work and we shall come back to a division of present boundaries. Is it really impossible for the Commission to revise parliamentary boundaries into legislative Assembly boundaries with all the safeguards that we require within 12 or 18 months?
The arguments for the first-past-the-post system had some validity up to five or six years ago. The theory was that the system at least produced a Government with a majority that could carry its


legislation through a four or five-year Parliament. They would have no excuse for not getting legislation through and, if things went wrong, that would be the responsibility of the Government.
It seems now that the genius or folly of the British people has produced, in a muddled way, a great progression towards proportional representation in this Chamber. Perhaps the proportions of hon. Members of various parties are not those that would be produced by a full STV or PR system—the Liberals rightly complain that their numbers do not reflect their support in the country—but the system has produced a sort of proportional representation.
The whole basis of saying that the first-past-the-post system produced a strong, determined and united Government has gone by the board. We should look very closely at the proposals in the amendment. If the old system has palpably failed to give what it was intended to give, namely, a Government with a guaranteed majority, we should look at the alternatives.

Mrs. Knight: I listened to my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, Pent-lands (Mr. Rifkind) with great interest, as always, but he failed to persuade me on one of his major points, namely, that if we introduced proportional representation for the Scottish Assembly, it would not automatically follow for the rest of the country. I think that it would be inevitable that, once STV or PR—already, lamentably, introduced in Northern Ireland—was operated in Scotland, it would be only a short time before it was introduced for the Westminster Parliament. It is no secret that this is what the Liberal Party is hoping for. It seems logical to the Liberals as a first step on the road to proportional representation in this House.
I strongly oppose the group of amendments. Bearing in mind that the idea will spread, we should remember that we are discussing multi-Member constituencies—two people representing the same area. This simply will not work. It is rather like having two women in one kitchen; it is well known that that does not work, either. Inevitably some Members are hard workers and some are rather lazy. I can well imagine a

system which would allow a totally unfair burden to be placed on one of the two Members in any area.

10.15 p.m.

Mr. Mackintosh: If the hon. Lady is taking strong objection to the amendment, does she appreciate that the Government proposal is for some three-Member seats and some two-Member seats, which from her point of view is a worse proposal than that contained in the amendment?

Mrs. Knight: We are discussing the method of election, and that is very much tied in with the STV system.

Mr. Mackintosh: It is in the Government's proposals.

Mrs. Knight: I make no secret of the fact that I entirely disagree with the whole Bill. Let there be no misunderstanding about that. I shall vote against it as often as I am permitted at every stage. I strongly object to what the hon. Gentleman is suggesting, because I see the projection of the STV system into this place.

Mr. Rifkind: My hon. Friend keeps on mentioning the STV system, but that is not what is proposed in the amendment. The amendment puts forward the proposition of single-Member constituencies with only one Member per constituency, but added to that a total of 50 Members elected from a list system who will not be additional Members in individual constituencies.

Sir Nigel Fisher: It is nothing to do with STV.

Mrs. Knight: As I understand it, they will have representation in the Assembly.

Mr. Rifkind: The added Members will not represent a particular constituency. They will be in the same position as those who operate under the West German system. They will be added Members sitting in the Assembly but not representing a particular constituency.

Mrs. Knight: I strongly object to the idea because I do not think it is workable to have various Members or Assemblymen floating around who have responsibilities over a wide area to a large electorate. It is not possible for the system to work smoothly.
I can imagine a situation in which a constituency is represented by a Conservative and a Labour man is anxious to make party points, he being on the second list. In that situation it can be envisaged that one will be played off against another. There would be a sort of political party game. one saying "I did better for him than you did."
We all know that in our constituencies we have our difficult constituents. I can imagine those constituents going to one Assemblyman after another, with the result that the whole process would be gone into over and over again. It would seem pretty easy to shrug off one's responsibilities towards constituents. It would be easy to say "Why should I take up their burdens when there are others who are entitled to do so?" I cannot see the system working.
I do not know whether the hon. Member for Berwick and East Lothian (Mr. Mackintosh) was introducing a note of gaiety when he said that there could be pop stars on the list. How delightful that would be! It must be remembered that many pop stars have contested elections in recent years solely for the publicity. They have not had the slightest intention of working afterwards if elected. However, in the system that is proposed we could have people on the list who would be dead wood from the word go.
The hon. Gentleman said that we should not have any more the pure milk of party doctrine if we introduced the second list. I find that difficult to understand when he admits that the list would be nominated by the parties. Surely no party will nominate someone who is not going to follow the pure milk of party doctrine. It was the hon. Gentlemen who made the point about pop stars.

Mr. Mackintosh: No, university rectors.

Mrs. Knight: He was saying that pop stars, for instance, could go on the list. I believe that the hon. Member's pro-

posals would give rise to much more of the pure milk of party doctrine, not less. Furthermore, I cannot imagine people who voted for a personality on the first ballot then voting for a party hack on the next.
I cannot imagine how the hon Member's suggestions in the amendments will stop the power of the Executive in the way that he claimed. He did not explain that clearly. The factor which gives the Executive power over this House is that Members are too busy. There are times when Ministers with heavy responsibilities swallow the advice of civil servants whole simply because they have not had the time to go through all the suggestions made to them. The hon. Member's proposed system would do nothing to help in this respect, because it could make for even busier Members.
There has been reference to the complications of voting slips. I agree that it is had to have a complicated voting method. The public regard this as a serious matter and there is the risk of inconsistencies so that the amendments could make matters far worse.
It is foolish to argue that votes for a defeated candidate are wasted votes. A vote is never wasted so long as it is cast in favour of the person one supports. To say that a vote is wasted is like saying that a person who enters a race is wasting his efforts if he does not win. Equally, we could say that we are wasting our time trooping through the Lobbies in this place if we do not win. That is the strange argument that lies behind the suggestions of the hon. Member for Berwick and East Lothian. We must all at some time expand our efforts on something that does not succeed. We are not in the Alice-in-Wonderland race around the pool of tears where everybody won and everybody had to have a prize.
It seems totally undemocratic to say, as the hon. Member said, that the defeated candidate could win under his system. That remark above all others would induce me to go into the Lobby against his amendments.

Mr. David Knox: After a long series of speakers representing Scottish constituencies, it seems to be the turn of Members representing English constituencies to speak, although in my case that might not be so obvious.
I take a different view from that of my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Edgbaston (Mrs. Knight), and even her great charm has been unable to sway me to her way of thinking. I support the hon. Member for Berwick and East Lothian (Mr. Mackintosh), whose speech was even more brilliant than the one he delivered earlier this year when he introduced similar amendments to the Scotland and Wales Bill. Those amendments seem to me to be an attempt to ensure that the Scottish Assembly is much more truly representative of the wishes of the electorate than it would be under the Government's proposals.
The system proposed by the Government is unfair, unrepresentative and undemocratic. Under the scheme in the Bill an election with the voting pattern displayed at both of the 1974 General Elections would return the Labour Party with almost two-thirds of the seats on the basis of just over one-third of the popular vote. The Conservatives, the SNP and the Liberals taken together would have almost two-thirds of the popular vote but fewer than one-third of the seats.
I would not be too worried if the party with the majority of seats fell a little short of 50 per cent. of the popular vote, but it is completely different if a party with just over one-third of the popular vote achieves a clear majority. That would give to such a party the power to do what two-thirds of the electorate did not want to be done. The effect of that on the electorate could not be anything but bad. It would undermine their belief in democracy, which is already under a severe challenge. It would tend to encourage people to get their way by undemocratic means.
I understand that the Labour Party, looking at the 1974 General Elections, might say that this is fine. They might not be concerned if they got one-third of the vote and the majority of seats. But they must realise that it would require no great change in political allegiances

to do the same for the Conservative Party or for the SNP.
The Labour Party should realise that elections to the Scottish Assembly will normally take place every four years. The elections may well take place at a time when a Labour Government in Westminster are unpopular. That could result in the Labour Party being left with no representation at all in the Assembly I suspect that if elections to the Assembly had taken place earlier this year that would have happened to the Labour Party.
I should welcome that situation if people did not vote for the Labour Party and it got less than 5 per cent. of the popular vote. But I do not think that it would be right if 20 or 25 per cent. of people voted for the Labour Party and that party had no representation at all. The argument is the same for the Conservative Party and the SNP.
It is not unreasonable to predict that it is unlikely that any political party in the foreseeable future will poll more than 40 per cent. of the popular vote in Scotland—far less a majority. In such circumstances there is an overwhelming case against the Government's proposals and in favour of the amendments. There is an overwhelming case against a system that could give complete control to a party—any party—with one third of the popular vote and in favour of the system proposed in the amendments which seeks to ensure a much fairer representation of the voters' wishes.
Although I do not agree with them, I can understand the reluctance of many people to countenance changes to the electoral system. We should always be wary of change, especially when we cannot see the full consequences of that change. But it is equally wrong to be adamant against all change. The constitution of this country will survive only if we are willing to adjust it in line with changing circumstances. There will always be people who will resist change. I hope that there always will be if only to ensure that those who advocate change make their case.
In the past we have changed the electoral system when conditions have changed. I remind hon. Members who


attribute our political stability to our electoral system that that system has not been static. In the last century the electorate was extended as the new industrial social classes asserted themselves and demanded their political rights. Earlier this century the electorate was extended as women asserted themselves and demanded their political rights. Eight years ago when young people began to assert themselves and demand their political rights the voting age was changed.
In the past we rejected rotten boroughs when their manifest injustice became obvious to a changing electorate. We rejected the multi-Member constituency when its injustices became apparent. It is strange that the Government in their Bill are suggesting, at least in the short term, that this concept should be reintroduced.
10.30 p.m.
Apart from a relatively short period in the 1920s we have had a two-party system in this country for a long time. Whether we in the big parties like it or not, we do not have a two-party system now; we have a multi-party system. If the constitution is to survive, the time is right for a change in the electoral system to meet this new development—the emergence of a multi-party situation. I am convinced that we need change, although I am not altogether certain that the proposals in the amendments are necessarily absolutely right. Having said that, it seems that the Bill provides the ideal opportunity to experiment with a possible change in the electoral system.
I will give my reasons for this view. First, however strong the case for change may be in the United Kingdom as a whole—with two large parties, one not-so-large party and the Scottish, Welsh and Irish parties—the case is immeasurably stronger in Scotland where there are three large parties of near equal size, plus a sizable Liberal Party, plus the Scottish Labour Party. A multi-party situation exists in Scotland. It has been there for some time and it will not go away.
The second reason is that in this Bill we are creating new institutions. It is much easier to introduce an innovation in a new constitution than in an older constitution. Thirdly, the Scottish Assembly offers us the chance to try a system of electoral reform without upsetting the

Government and Parliament of the whole United Kingdom. If this system proves to be a success in Scotland it can be extended. If, on the other hand, it proves to be a failure, there is no reason why it should be extended to the United Kingdom. It can be forgotten or some other system tried.
Although neither I nor anyone else can claim with certainty that the amendment is the best method of reform, it possesses five characteristics which appeal to me and lead me to believe that at present it is probably the best form. The details of how the system works were explained by the hon. Member for Berwick and East Lothian (Mr. Mackintosh) and I do not intend to go over them now. Let me briefly mention the main advantages of the system, as I see them.
First, it is fair. I found the arguments of the hon. Member for Renfrewshire, West (Mr. Buchan) strange. He seems to want social justice but not electoral justice. I do not understand how this squares up. The hon. Member for Berwick and East Lothian gave the figures of the seats, under this system, which the various parties would get, based on the voting in the October General Election. The figures based on the February General Election would be similar. In both cases the result of the formula in the amendments would be that the true wishes of the Scottish people would be more accurately represented in the Scottish Assembly than under the first-past-the-post system. The system proposed in the amendments would be much more just than the nonsenses inherent in the Government proposals, under which on the 1974 election results the Labour Party would have almost two-thirds of the seats from only about 36 per cent. of the popular vote.
The second reason why I like this system is that, unlike some forms of proportional representation, the scheme put forward in the amendment preserves the relationship between most of the Members of the Assembly and the people in a workable constituency. It means that constituents will still have someone to go to, someone to influence. It means that Members will be subject to public opinion—and not just public opinion in their own party. It is important that this be the case. One of the great advantages of the present system is that although a


Member does not necessarily represent the views of political opponents in his constituency, he is subject to their views and moderates his views because of them. It therefore brings him nearer to the constituency consensus than if he had direct contact only with his own party members. The added-Member system ensures that relationship for two-thirds of the Members of the Assembly.
Thirdly, I like the system because it is simple, despite what my hon. Friend the Member for Fife, East (Sir J. Gilmour) has said. Only two votes are cast, one for the candidate, as at present, and one for a party. That is very much better than the more complicated system suggested, at least as an initial system, by the Government.
The fourth reason why I like this system is that, before additional Members are allowed at all, a threshold of 5 per cent. of the popular vote is required. This discourages the excessive fragmentation which is inherent in some systems of proportional representation. But I remind the Committee that there has already been some fragmentation under the first-past-the-post system. It is wrong to claim that fragmentation is produced only by systems of proportional representation.
The fifth reason why I like this system is that the amendments provide for the first Assembly elections only. They do not prevent modifications at a later stage if required. This means that the Assembly and this House will be able to deal with any problems and difficulties that may occur. So we are retaining a degree of flexibility while introducing a new system of election.
I understand that part of the case against any form of proportional representation, including this system, is that it means that party leaders may have to do deals behind Mr. Speaker's Chair or in smoke-filled rooms before any Government is formed. I do not think that there is much substance in that argument. Already earlier this year, under the present system, it has happened, and it is possible that it may well happen again in future. Why should it not happen? What is particularly wrong with it? When party leaders go into this sort of discussion and have to do deals of this

nature, they have to do so on the basis of the principles of their party and of the manifesto on which it fought the General Election.
If a Government is formed, there will be compromise, but any such compromise is subject to the constraints of not offending too deeply those electors who voted for the party at the election, lest they withdraw their support at the next election. Such a compromise between party leaders is surely much better than the possible outcome of the Government's proposals, with the possibility, inherent in the Government's proposals, indeed, the probability—of a party which got about one-third of the votes getting complete power. Surely the scheme proposed by the Government is wrong. Surely, equally, the scheme proposed in the amendment is very much more desirable and very much more democratic.

Several Hon. Members: rose—

Mr. George Cunningham: On a point of order, Mr. Murton. As you are aware, after this group of amendments is disposed of there are five further groups of amendments which need to be taken before 7 p.m. tomorrow, and in the light of that fact, I beg to move, That the Question be now put.

The Chairman (Mr. Oscar Murton): I cannot accept that motion.

Mr. Cunningham: Further to that point of order, Mr. Murton. Can you help the House with regard to your attitude to receiving motions of that kind? Would it be right to assume that you would not necessarily refuse to accept such a motion before the guillotine fell on any guillotined section?
If you are not prepared to receive such a motion at any time, the likely consequence is that all the time in any guillotine section will be taken up with the first group of amendments in any case. It may be that some people in the House would like that, as showing the disadvantage of having a guillotine on a Bill of this kind—a view with which I wholeheartedly concur. But it would be a pity if, having a guillotine, we were not able to have a vote on any amendment other than the first amendment in the first group of any guillotine section.
I hope, therefore, that you can tell me that your refusal of my motion on this


occasion does not mean that you and your colleagues in the Chair would always refuse such a motion until all the people who wanted to speak on the first group had expressed themselves.

The Chairman: I can assure the hon. Gentleman that the Chair will use its discretion in any case in which such a motion is claimed during the remainder of the Committee stage of the Bill.

Mr. Anthony Kershaw: Further to the point of order, Mr. Murton. Unless the number of speakers has completely run out on any particular section, surely what the hon. Member for Islington, South and Finsbury (Mr. Cunningham) has suggested would introduce a sort of guillotine within a guillotine, so that it would be very difficult for the House to express any coherent view about anything.

The Chairman: That, if I may say so, is exactly why the Chair will use its discretion.

Mr. George Cunningham: Further to the point of order, Mr. Murton. I hope that you and the hon. Member for Stroud (Mr. Kershaw) will appreciate that unless an amendment is moved before the end of a guillotine section, no vote can take place upon that amendment. Consequently, unless we have other Members exhausting themselves who want to speak on the first group we shall only ever get a vote on the first amendment in the first group in any guillotine section. That might cut out not only some very important amendments but some amendments which have a chance of succeeding, unlike this one, which has not a cat in hell's chance of succeeding, and we all know it.

The Chairman: I can assure the hon. Gentleman that I shall bear in mind the point that he has raised. I assure him that the Chair will use its discretion as and when the need arises.

Mr. Penhaligon: As I understand it, the basic argument for the electoral system proposed in the Bill is that it will give a clear result. As someone who represents a constituency just about as far from Scotland as it is possible to get, I wish to raise with the Committee an issue that has not been discussed at all but which to my mind shows that some

times anything hut a clear result can be produced by our electoral system.
According to the electoral laws of this country, I am the Member for Truro, and have sat in this House as such for three years. It is, however, a fact—it gives me a little pleasure to admit it, but it is a fact, nevertheless—that on 10th October 1974 there were more Conservatives in my constituency than there were Liberals. The reason that I was elected to this House was the use, in my constituency, of tactical voting. I have some experience of this. Indeed, the Members on the Liberal Bench probably have as much experience of it as any. I wish to tell the Committee how it is possible in Scotland for mass tactical voting—which I know can happen in constituencies, because I was elected to this House purely and simply because of it—to produce an election result which, although it might be clear in the House in terms of the majority, is no clear indication of anything whatsoever.
I draw the attention of the Committee, by way of example, to the constituency of West Stirlingshire, in Scotland. In that constituency at the last election the Labour Party won with 39 per cent. of the poll, the SNP were second with 38 per cent., the Conservatives had 18 per centfl and the Liberals, gallant people though they were, had 4 per cent. It is my submission that it would be quite possible for the SNP to win that seat in a Scottish Assembly election when the number of people in that constituency supporting independence had actually gone down. It is quite possible that a united anti-Left-wing Socialist vote—if the hon. Member for West Stirlingshire (Mr. Canavan) will not object to my using the expression—could produce the appearance of a clear result, in that it could go down in the book as an SNP gain, when in fact it was nothing of the sort. This has already happened in my constituency in Cornwall and I shall certainly do my best to encourage it to happen again at the next election.

10.45 p.m.

Mr. George Reid: Is it not therefore to the credit of the SNP that it has consistently supported electoral reform and will continue to do so?

Mr. Penhaligon: I do not argue with that. I am possibly one of a few hon. Members who are more likely to get elected to this House under the present voting system than under a system of PR, which must be some sort of distinction in itself.
Let me continue with this point. There is a pile of constituencies in Scotland—areas which I admit I have never heard of—that could well return SNP Members even though there was a real reduction in support for the nationalist cause. I am thinking of constituencies like Kinross and West Perthshire; West Stirlingshire; Lanark; Inverness; Ross and Cromarty; Stirling, Falkirk and Grangemouth; West Lothian; West Dunbartonshire; East Kilbride and East Fife. Everyone of those constituencies could change to the SNP purely and simply under this magnificent voting system, because of tactical voting.
We have heard speeches today in favour if the additional-Member system. I prefer the single transferable vote. I cannot understand the objections that some hon. Members have put forward to having a number of Members representing a single area. I would just as soon be one of five Members from Cornwall as the Member of Parliament for Truro.
I sometimes wonder just whom I represent in my constituency. I am trying to be honest, which is a rare thing in this House. I polled 22,000 votes and I admit that a substantial proportion of them were tactical. That means that in my constituency 51,000 people in their wisdom decided not to support me. Of the 22,000 who voted for me only a small number did so because I was a Liberal. Therefore, do I represent the majority of those people in this House or do I try to represent the 76,000 of which three-quarters chose not to vote for me?
It is a myth to suggest that our present electoral system produces a clear result or, at least, a clear indication of what the people have done. I hope that hon. Members will add that matter to their calculations.
I give a couple of other examples. Had the European referendum been fought by a "Yes" party and a "No" party, the result would have been two people voting "Yes" for every one voting "No".

That would have meant that in this House there would have been 630 hon. Members voting "Yes" and only five voting "No", because there were no more than five constituencies where the "Noes" were in the majority. Would that vote of 630 hon. Members to five hon. Members have been a fair and clear representation of the people of Scotland?
I shall vote for the additional-Member system. I believe that any method must be clearer than the method that we have now. But I ask the House to provide an electoral system where people can go to the poll and use their votes to express the views which they honestly hold, as opposed to being tempted by people like me to use their votes for a cause which they do not totally support because in that way they may prevent something which at that moment they think even more objectionable. That is what tactical voting is about.
In Scotland, four-fifths of the Members might get in purely because of tactical voting. What conclusion Scottish voters would draw from that when there was an election, I do not know.

Mr. Robert Hughes: If people voted tactically under the present system, how is it that, mysteriously, they will not vote tactically with PR?

Mr. Penhaligon: That is quite simple. They will know that even if, in a constituency, they are casting their votes for a lost cause, the additional Members will mean that those votes will represent something in the Parliament. That is just what is happening in my constituency now. People vote neither Labour nor Meb Kernow in my constituency, because they recognise that neither of those philosophies stands a chance of winning the seat. Fortunately for me, I appear to a number of them slightly less objectionable than the alternative, which is the Conservative, and I get elected.
There is no doubt that tactical voting would be finished if any of the electoral systems talked about today were introduced.

Mr. Buchan: In the first place, whatever happened to the 50 on the list straight voting as they wished, tactical voting would remain for the 100. But, secondly, the hon. Gentleman is being


unjust to tactical voting. His presence here represents not necessarily a Liberal majority but an anti-Tory majority in his constituency. As a result, those who voted tactically—that is, Labour—have succeeded, because we have the Lib-Lab pact.

Mr. Penhaligon: Has it ever occurred to the hon. Gentleman, who in his constituency did not get a much larger percentage of the poll than I did—I think he got 41 per cent.—that in his majority there is a clear anti-Labour vote and that, at the next election, if the SNP organises its tactical voting—if the SNP wants some advice on tactical voting, I can supply it; it is quite an art—the removal of the hon. Member for Renfrew-shire, West (Mr. Buchan) will be relatively simple? Just what that would prove I do not know, except that it would take one hon. Member from the Labour Benches and add one to the SNP Bench.
At the moment, this does not happen in more than 30 or 40 constituencies in the country. But Scotland could be overwhelmed by it in any future election. Certainly the election of a Scottish Parliament, given the present state of the parties in Scotland, not only would be a roulette system of Scottish opinion but possibly would result in more votes being cast tactically than for people's real preferences. How people can support that system, I do not know.

Mr. Pym: This debate has been particularly important and interesting because it has revealed the extent to which there is a growing anxiety about our institutions and their democratic workings.
A few years ago, this debate would have been unimaginable. The extent to which our parliamentary system is questioned is of very modern times. The fact is that proportional representation and electoral reform are topics which for various reasons are attracting more and more interest.
The main argument is the extent to which Governments are elected on minority votes. This was the argument advanced strongly by the hon. Member for Berwick and East Lothian (Mr. Mackintosh), my hon. Friend the Member for Leek (Mr. Knox) and the hon. Member for Truro (Mr. Penhaligon). There is nothing new about that. Indeed, most Governments are elected on a minority

vote. But it is the extent to which that minority exists in relation to the present Government and this House of Commons that concerns us. Another example, that of Quebec, has been mentioned.
However, in the context of the Bill, this debate is something of a diversion, because the scheme envisaged in the Bill is a bad one and it cannot be made a good one by changing the method of election to the Assembly. I do not think that one can redeem the essential flaws in the Bill just by introducing PR.
It is most unfortunate that devolution in general, and this Bill in particular, is surrounded, as it always has been, by controversy and disagreement. If we want any evidence of that, we can find it in what happened earlier this evening.

Mr. Mackintosh: Am I to take it from what the right hon. Gentleman says that he agrees that the amendment, if carried, would make the Bill a better Bill, even if he does not think that it would remedy all his objections? If that is so, would that not be good reason for supporting the amendment?

Mr. Pym: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will allow me to develop my argument. In the context of the Bill, this debate is about a very important issue, an electoral reform in a context that is not very favourable to it.

Mr. Reid: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Pym: No, I should like to make some progress.
What ought to happen in matters of major constitutional reform, such as devolution, the European Community or electoral change, is that there should exist a very broad measure of agreement about what is proposed. One will never get absolute agreement; I understand that. But the choice is either to have a broad degree of general support, which would entitle the Government and the House of Commons to proceed with such a change in the knowledge that a genuine degree of support exists, or not to proceed at all. I think that the feeling of the House of Commons on this Bill is that it would prefer not to proceed at all.
I know that we had a vote on Second Reading, but we all understand the deep


uneasiness that exists about it. If the circumstances were different, if there were a scheme of devolution commanding widespread support, we could have an extremely useful debate, perhaps even a crucial debate, about how the elections to some Assembly were to take place.
The best method of election to a new democratic body, such as is envisaged by devolution, must be dependent, at least to some extent, upon the exact nature of the Assembly that is established and upon the precise responsibilities that it is to have. It makes a difference.
The hon. Member for Berwick and East Lothian admits, for example, that PR does not provide strong government. He used those words tonight. He also said that such a system for elections would reflect very closely the wishes of the people and the votes that were cast. That is very important. But that is a different issue. Is the role to be imposed on the Assembly under this Bill such as to require strong government or not? In considering the Assembly proposed in the Bill, I think that the House of Commons is fearful that the Assembly will be too important. That was one reason why Clause 1 was turned down tonight. However, whether PR would weaken that Assembly was a question to which the hon. Member for Berwick and East Lothian did not address his mind.
We seemed to have arrived at an era in which the fashion is for more and more elected bodies to be proposed. I think that some hon. Members feel that we are becoming in danger of having too many elections. However, to the extent that there is a need for additional Assemblies, clearly there is a case for electing some of them on a different system. I do not see any merit in insisting that all the democratically elected bodies for which the people of this country vote should necessarily be elected on the same system.
In this case, I think that it depends on what role the Assembly is to have. For example, the role of the European Assembly is entirely different from the role to be fulfilled by the House of Commons. The same is true of the Scottish Assembly. Therefore, it is not necessary to say that the first-past-the-post system should apply for all these Assemblies.
Nor do I share the view of those who believe that any change in the system for any of these new Assemblies represents a precedent which is dangerous for the House of Commons. I know that hon. Members on both sides do take that view, but I do not. I am afraid that the position at present is that the climate is not right for constitutional change. The good will referred to by my hon. Friend the Member for Buckingham (Mr. Benyon) does not exist.

It being Eleven o'clock, The Chairman left the Chair to report Progress and ask leave to sit again, pursuant to the Order this day.

Committee report Progress; to sit again tomorrow.

RATE SUPPORT GRANT

Motion made, and Question proposed. That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Tinn]

11.1 p.m.

Mr. Geoffrey Johnson Smith: I speak tonight on behalf of my colleagues in West Sussex who are profoundly dissatisfied with the manner in which the rate support grant works and is applied to that area. One has only to look around the Chamber to see that that dissatisfaction is not confined to West Sussex. I am grateful for the opportunity of raising this matter on the Adjournment, and to the Minister for being here. I look forward to his remarks.
Our dissatisfaction is not related merely to the reduction of the percentage of the rate support grant—we understand the problems of the Government in this respect—nor is it entirely related to the switch of grant to the inner cities.
West Sussex is not, as some Labour Members believe, as lush a pasture as many claim. There is little industry to help share the burden of domestic ratepayers compared with many big cities and inner conurbations. The gross average earnings in West Sussex in 1976 were below the national average for England and Wales, well below those of Merseyside, and far, far below those of Greater London. I have the statistics here from the New Earnings Survey, but I will not read them out now.
We suffer from the disadvantage of not having people with the wherewithal to pay high rates, and in addition we have a much higher percentage of elderly people than most other areas, many of whom live to a great age. Also, housing costs are much higher in our part of the world. On top of that, those at the top end of the scale pay heavy charges in commuting, and our cost of living is higher.
The Minister has tried to limit the loss of the needs grant to any one authority in any one year to no more than a 2p rate. As far as I can see, it is not working out in the way intended. In West Sussex we have lost a needs grant of more than 2p in the pound—we reckon it is more like 3p.
In the financial year 1977–78 West Sussex received £33 million. Next year it will be £32 million. That is a loss of £1 million and it does not seem much in our straitened circumstances. But the Secretary of State has increased the needs grant overall by 7 per cent. to cover the increase in pay and prices beyond the control of local authorities. If we apply this 7 per cent. to West Sussex on the basis of what we got this financial year and compare it with what the Secretary of State told us we shall get next year, we find it represents a loss of £3 million in real terms. That is equivalent to a loss of over 3p in the pound.
We are not the only local authority affected. I was surprised to find that many big towns in England and Wales also would be grievously affected. The approximate loss in real terms of the needs grant in Wigan and Sheffield will be 6·5 per cent., in Sunderland, 6 per cent., in South Tyneside, 4 per cent., and in Liverpool—which certainly has its problems—2 per cent. Birmingham, which has massive social and housing problems, is at a standstill.
Therefore, other hon. Members will be coming to the House late at night to plague Ministers with pleas similar to those that I am making tonight. They will be asking the Government to reexamine the situation.
In West Sussex the loss in real terms will be about 10 per cent., and since a part of my constituency is in East Sussex, I should say that the loss to East Sussex,

in 1978–79 will be about 5 per cent. Therefore, that area has its problems, too.
Why is this happening? I think that the system is going wrong for two main reasons. First, London is getting too much in the way of grant. Compared with last year, London will get 20 per cent. more needs grant in real terms.

Mr. Victor Goodhew: Ridiculous.

Mr. Johnson Smith: It is ridiculous, as my hon. Friend rightly says. The London pudding has been over-egged. A political deal has been done somewhere.
The second reason why the formula is not working, and the reason why we in West Sussex are so dissatisfied, stems from the formula on which grant is based. I recently went with a deputation from West Sussex to see the Minister, and the view was strongly expressed to the Department that the formula is incomprehensible to the layman. It seems to me to be illogical, and I have no doubt that it is considered unreasonable by most experts in local finance. It is totally discredited by the Association of County Councils. The formula reputedly assesses the needs of councils. It uses past expenditure as a basis for the present approximation of needs. Up to the present this has meant that authorities which have spent more have received more. That surely is a prescription which penalises those local authorities which have responded to the needs of the Government to restrain the growth of expenditure, and it provides little incentive to future efficiency.
The formula appears to be arbitrary, theoretical, and lacking in objectivity. This year, operating on Formula 33—which sounds more like a hair lotion than anything else—the system does not take account of extra cost in areas where there is a growing population.

Mr. Peter Hordern: Does my hon. Friend appreciate that our part of West Sussex is increasing in population very rapidly indeed, but that the Government have made a special provision to allow 800 houses to be built in Crawley, in my constituency, and that people are coming down from London to live in those houses? Does he not feel that the rate support grant has therefore been twisted, since London is now receiving more in


rate support grant whereas we in West Sussex are having to cope with special problems but are suffering the lowest rate support grant in the country?

Mr. John Smith: I agree with my hon. Friend. It only serves to emphasise what I said earlier. Formula 33 does not take into account the education of those over the age of 16, nor the special needs of large elderly populations, as is the case in West Sussex. Formula 33 is superseded by Formula 9, whatever that means, but what we find is that it distributes more for single-parent families and people living in houses lacking basic amenities than it does for the whole of the education budget in West Sussex. And this applies not only to West Sussex. Over half the local authority expenditure goes on education. Next in priority of expenditure is the matter of law and order, involving the police; and then there are the firemen. It is little wonder we have problems over the police and firemen. Goodness knows how our authorities will meet some of the bills that are bound to be presented in the future. If something is not done about the situation there will be total chaos.

Mr. Michael Marshall: Does my hon. Friend agree that the current formula means that we are virtually encouraged to go out from West Sussex and recruit single-parent families and put them on top of our local authority housing lists? Is not that the way in which we are encouraged to tackle the present RSG formula?

Mr. Johnson Smith: One has great sympathy for one-parent families and those with social problems, but just as the Government have over-egged the pudding on the grant for London so they have over-weighted the needs element in the formula for those particular groups. That puts such councils as West Sussex in a serious position and jeopardises the structure of many of its important services.
In short, the formula bears little relation to what is regarded by the local authorities themselves as their most pressing needs and the things that they have to spend most of their money on if they are to discharge the statutory obligations laid down on them by the Government.
The Secretary of State told the consultative council last week:
Of course, some authorities will receive more grant than others, but they should recognise this additional grant is paid because of greater needs, not simply to hold the rates down".
The Secretary of State had earlier said that the 1978–79 supplement
provides sufficient resources to ensure that overall authorities need not make further cuts in spending programmes
The Treasurer of West Sussex County Council wrote to me saying:
If authorities gaining grant are expected to increase their expenditure it follows that authorities losing grant must cut their services if public expenditure is to be contained within the Government's target of nil growth".
When we came to see the Minister in the summer we said that we were at a loss to see how needs in West Sussex had fallen during the past financial year. It must be even more of a mystery for next year, because even if we applied the 7 per cent. grant we should be seriously out of pocket.
We know that the Minister has taken a great deal of care over this problem and has received our representations most courteously. We hope that in the short time remaining for this debate he will clarify this mystery, or, if he cannot do that, promise to ask the Secretary of State to look at the problem again.

11.13 p.m.

Mr. Richard Luce: I should like, briefly, to reinforce the powerful case that has been put by my hon. Friend the Member for East Grinstead (Mr. Johnson Smith) on behalf of West Sussex and, indeed, Hertfordshire.
There are several points that I should like to stress. The assumption that the Government seem to have made with regard to the rate support grant, that counties such as West Sussex are ones in which all the inhabitants are rich, is wrong. It is based on a complete illusion. There are many elderly people living in Sussex who are on supplementary benefit and who are extremely badly off. Industrial average earnings there are lower than the national average, and that is an important point.
I want also to reinforce a point that was made by my hon. Friend about the formula. It is extraordinary, when in certain parts of the country elderly people


constitute twice the national average, that this formula cannot take into account the great burdens that that imposes on such counties.
I hope that the Minister will correct me if I am wrong, but I understand that taking into account income given by the Government in the form of rate support grant to West Sussex, we receive 21 per cent. less than the average county in income from the Government. The domestic ratepayer pays 7 per cent. more than the average domestic ratepayer in other counties. That seems to be a gross injustice to West Sussex and I hope that the Minister will respond to the powerful case that has been made on behalf of ratepayers there.

11.15 p.m.

The Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Guy Barnett): I am grateful to the hon. Member for East Grinstead (Mr. Johnson Smith) for the appraisal that he has given of the effects of the 1978–79 rate support grant settlement on West Sussex. I also listened with interest to what the hon. Member for Shoreham (Mr. Luce) had to say. I shall also want to refer later to the intervention made by the hon. Member for Horsham and Crawley (Mr. Hordern).
In the relatively short time available to me, I can deal only with the major points that the hon. Gentleman raised, but this will not be the only opportunity to discuss the effect of the 1978–79 settlement on West Sussex. We shall have a full debate on the whole settlement before Christmas, when the Statutory Instruments that bring it into force are put to the House for approval.
The hon. Gentleman made some kind remarks about the reception that I gave the well-attended deputation from West Sussex. I should be ready to meet hon. Members and local authority representatives early in the new year if they wish. The hon. Gentleman illustrated in his speech that the RSG arrangements are extremely complex, and we should be able to deal more fully with the many technical issues at such a meeting.

Mr. Goodhew: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that Hertfordshire Members asked to see him, the Secretary of State, or anyone else who was prepared to talk

to us, about the effect of the RSG changes on our county and that we were denied a meeting before the settlement was announced last week? What opportunity is there for us to influence the Government if decisions are made before we have talked to Ministers?

Mr. Barnett: I am not sure when that meeting was requested, but it is probable that the advanced date was impossible for us, if the hon. Gentlemen wanted to discuss the 1978–79 settlement, because the details had to be confidential then. It obviously makes sense to discuss a settlement when the figures have been made public and not immediately before they are announced.
We saw deputations from West Sussex and other authorities, so that the points raised by councils that were badly hit by the 1977–78 settlement could be taken into account when we discuss next year's. settlement. The safety-net was one of the improvements that we made after listening to deputations.
It is not an idle compliment for me to say that, in presenting its case, West Sussex dealt very well with the complexities of the RSG—probably as well as any county in the country. The hon. Gentleman's speech reflected that fact, and these meetings and debates are valuable in the continuing operation.
It has been made clear to us by the county that it was one of several authorities on whom the 1977–78 settlement bore heavily. The hon. Gentleman's-speech also reflected this. I have no doubt that the combination of a reduction and a redistribution of the RSG in 1977–78 put pressures on both rates and the provision of services in the county. I wish to underline that there is no question of our picking on West Sussex. A number of other authorities were faced with the same sorts of problems, as I have good reason to know, since many of them came to see me.
In reaching decisions for 1978–79, we were conscious of the need for stability in authorities' grant entitlements in the coming year. That was put to us repeatedly. This is what we have set out to achieve. The hon. Gentleman might have mentioned that we have maintained the level of the grant at 61 per cent, and introduced two arrangements for limiting


year-on-year changes in grant entitlements.
The first arrangement, which the hon. Gentleman has mentioned and to which I have just referred, is the 2p "safety-net". That is an innovation in the 1978–79 settlement. West Sussex, as the hon. Gentleman acknowledged, is one of the 12 authorities to benefit from that provision.
The second arrangement is four year damping. That is secured by combining the 1978–79 needs assessment formula with those for 1977–78, 1976–77, 1976–75. The longer the period of damping, the greater the year-on-year stability in grant entitlements. For 1977–78, damping was spread over three years only.
The effect of these provisions will be to limit grant losses as a result of the replacement of the 1977–78 RSG distribution arrangements by the 1978–79 RSG distribution arrangements to the equivalent of a 2p rate. In 1977–78 some authorities were losing up to the equivalent of a 6p rate as a result of the change in the distribution arrangements.
The effect of the combination of the 61 per cent. grant and the limitations of the redistribution will be to protect all authorities from the sort of dilemma they had to face in 1977–78 between sharp rate increases or cut-backs in their services.
I do not pretend that West Sussex will not lose out at all in 1978–79.
But the county has relatively low rate poundages—4p. lower than the national average—and no doubt careful consideration will be given by the county to whether this gap can be narrowed further before any cuts in the level of service provision are put in hand. West Sussex, and other similar counties, will be less favourably placed as a result of the recent settlement than many other authorities, particularly urban authorities.
The Government remain convinced of the continued need to concentrate resources in those areas of this country with the most pressing social and economic needs.
On the evidence used in our needs assessment, West Sussex is far more fortunately placed than most other authorities, and in particular those with inner city problems. I compare West Sussex with its neighbour Hampshire. West Sussex has a lower incidence of poor

quality housing, overcrowded housing, unemployment, lone parent families, primary school pupils, shared households, and so forth.
Given that we are keeping the level of RSG, in real terms, fixed in 1978–79, any redistribution of the grant to harder pressed authorities necessarily means a smaller share of the cake for the more fortunately placed authorities. This is inevitable.
I am sure that the hon. Gentleman would agree with our efforts to control the total of RSG going to authorities.
What we are doing at the same time, as I mentioned earlier, is limiting year-on-year changes in grant to individual authorities as a result of the redistribution.
When the final figures for 1977–78 are known, the needs element entitlement for West Sussex will probably have declined by about £4 million in cash terms, or 11 per cent., by comparison with the previous year. In 1978–79, the equivalent decline is likely to be under £1 million in cash terms, or 3 per cent. That is a considerably different figure from the £10 million losses the county was fearing earlier in the year.
It might be useful if I explain how West Sussex will fare in 1978–79 in more detail. It loses about £2 million as a result of the use of the new 1978–79 needs assessment formula. It loses a further £250,000 as a result of the decision on the London resources adjustment, and a further £250,000 as a result of data changes. Because in total these losses add up to slightly more than the equivalent of a 2p rate, West Sussex qualifies for a safety-net payment of about £300,000. This would leave the county with about £2¼ million less in constant-price terms than it would have got if the same grant arrangements had been used as in 1977–78. But because of inflation, the 1978–79 needs element is bigger than for 1977–78 in cash terms. As a result, West Sussex's cash loss is less, at about £900,000.
I am afraid that this may seem a complicated description, and I hope that when the hon. Member studies theOfficial Report tomorrow it will be a little clearer to him. Perhaps if we could meet later we could discuss the matter in more detail.
The hon. Member made a number of criticisms about the present system of


needs assessment—regression analysis. This has been criticised by the counties and does not receive the wholehearted support of the Association of County Councils.
These criticisms have been put to my officials by West Sussex in the course of written exchanges between us. I admit that the regression analysis technique is not perfect. We are looking at alternative methods of needs assessment and if we find a better method we shall use it. I have made this point to each deputation that I have met.
There are two points that I should make. First, we feel that an assessment of authorities' spending needs is essential. Without it, there would be no basis at all for reflecting changing expenditure requirements and pressures on authorities.
Secondly, of all the methods currently available, regression analysis appears to be the most solidly based. It is founded on an objective analysis of authorities' spending problems; it is of general application; and it limits the areas on which judgments are required.
The hon. Member for Horsham and Crawley mentioned the more favourable treatment being given to London in the 1978–79 settlement. As my right hon. Friend said when he announced the Government's 1978–79 proposals to the local authority associations, the settlement implies the same increase in average London domestic rate bills as elsewhere. It does not imply any closing of the average gap between rate bills in London and outside London—which is presently over £50—but nor does it imply any widening of this gap.
Hon. Members may note that the rate bill for a domestic ratepayer living in a

three-bedroomed Parker-Morris house in East Grinstead will be under £100 per annum. His brother-in-law, living in an identical house in my constituency, will pay more than £150 a year. In the present economic circumstances, we thought it quite wrong for the gap between the rate bills of the London domestic ratepayer and his counterpart elsewhere to widen any further, and that is the reason for what we have done.
I hope that the honourable Member for East Grinstead will agree with me that this has been a useful exchange of views on a very important issue. I hope that I have been able to deal with some of the points raised by him.
The population issue was raised again, this time by the hon. Member for Crawley and Horsham, and I understand why. We have studied again and again the question whether population increase has a significant effect on the spending need per head. This point is repeatedly raised with me by the East Anglian authorities, which have probably had a far greater rise in population than West Sussex.
No doubt the hon. Gentleman will want to return to the fray in the debate that will take place before Christmas, but if, in addition, he wants to meet me when I meet his hon. Friends to discuss these points in more detail I shall be very glad to make the necessary arrangements.

Mr. Johnson-Smith: I am obliged to the Minister and I thank him for what he said. We cannot go along with all he said, but we will take him up on his kind invitation to meet him again.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at twenty-nine minutes past Eleven o'clock.